LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Class 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


BY 


GIOVANNI   ROSADI 

DEPUTATO  TO  THE  ITALIAN  PARLIAMENT  AND 
ADVOCATE  TO  THE  COUBT  OF  TUSCANY 


EDITED,  WITH  A  PREFACE,  BY 

DR.   EMIL   REICH 

AUTHOR  OF 

"SUCCESS  AMONG  NATIONS,"  "FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN 
EUROPE,"  "ATLAS  OF  ENGLISH  HISTORY,"  ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

DODD,   MEAD   AND   COMPANY 
1905 


P  /  T1 


Copyright,  1905,  by 
DODD,  MEAD  AND  COMPANY 

Published,  April,  1905 


PREFACE 

IN  August  last  I  happened  to  hear,  almost  immediately 
after  its  publication,  of  the  present  work  on  the  trial  of 
Jesus.  Ever  anxious  to  learn  what  Italian  thinkers  have  to 
say  in  all  matters  of  human  interest,  I  hastened  to  acquire 
the  book,  and  read  it  with  avidity.  It  has  long  been  my 
conviction  that  in  the  history  of  Jesus  is  indicated  and  re- 
vealed the  history  of  all  humanity.  The  history  of  The 
Man  is  the  history  of  man.  No  age,  no  single  historian  can 
tell  the  last  word  of  this  unique  story.  Each  generation 
wants  its  own  Life  of  Jesus ;  for  in  each  generation  new,  or 
partially  new,  human  forces  are  shaping  new  phenomena 
of  goodness  and  wickedness,  of  greatness  and  misery. 
Whatever  new  or  formally  new  features  may  rise  on  the 
moral  horizon  of  humanity,  we  may  always  be  sure  that  it 
is  within  the  Sphere  of  that  Sun  that  for  close  on  sixty  gen- 
erations has  been  the  centre  of  our  ethical  and  religious 
system.  The  depths  and  endless  vistas  in  the  Life  of  Je- 
sus are  such  as  to  necessitate  a  study  of  His  time  from  the 
most  varied  standpoints. 

Unfortunately  for  a  true  comprehension  of  Jesus  as  a 
purely  historical  phenomenon,  let  alone  as  the  religious 
Fact  and  Impulse,  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  has 
in  the  last  seventy  to  eighty  years  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  so-called  "higher  critics,"  in  whose  criticism  there  is 
nothing  high,  and  in  whose  heights  there  is  nothing  crit- 
ical. They  are  philologians ;  and  that  alone  condemns 
them  as  historians  generally,  and  places  them  absolutely 


214489 


vi  PREFACE 

out  of  court  as  historians  of  Christianity.  The  philologian, 
whose  means  and  habits  of  research  are  taken  from  the 
study  of  languages,  is  and  must  be  naturally  averse  to  a  be- 
lief in  personality.  Languages,  indeed,  have  not  been  pro- 
duced by  single  personalities;  and  no  one  syntactic  con- 
struction, such  as  the  ablativus  absolutus,  or  any  other  lin- 
guistic institution  of  Latin  or  Greek  or  Hebrew,  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  influence  of  a  single  great  personality. 
In  Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  everything  emanates 
from  and  comes  back  to  one  central  Personality.  Reduce 
or  obliterate  that  Personality,  and  you  have  reduced  or 
obliterated  the  whole  of  Christianity. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  show  that  all  ancient  polities  of 
the  classical  type  are  necessarily  based  and  grafted  upon 
an  initial  and  final  Personality.  To  the  sober  student  of 
History  and  Religion  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that 
while,  for  instance,  the  existence  of  the  Spartan  state  or 
the  Hebrew  state  may  be  considered  only  as  an  historic 
necessity,  the  existence  of  Lycurgus  and  Moses  are  facts  of 
psychological  necessity.  In  the  case  of  Christianity  this 
irresistible  psychological  inference  from  present  Chris- 
tianity to  its  Founder,  that  is,  to  the  surpassing  Personality 
of  Jesus,  becomes  almost  a  logical  necessity.  If  we  should 
lose  every  scrap  of  written  or  monumental  evidence  from 
the  first  century  of  our  era,  just  as  we  have  lost  all  contem- 
porary evidence  of  Lycurgus  or  Moses,  the  very  fact  of 
Christianity  as  existing  to-day  ought  to  suffice  to  prove  the 
existence  of  a  Founder  endowed  with  a  unique  and  alto- 
gether extraordinary  personality. 

All  these  manifest  truths,  proved  by  the  most  sceptical 
and  "  objective  "  study  of  the  past,  are  contemptuously  ig- 
nored by  the  pedants  who  have  so  long  imposed  upon  peo- 
ple who  affect  to  be  stunned  by  a  display  of  learned  foot- 
notes in  a  dozen  old  languages.  It  is  now  high  time  to 


PREFACE  vii 

proclaim  that  "  higher  criticism,"  whether  applied  to  Greek 
and  Latin  classics  or  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  has 
proved  an  amazing  blunder.  Nor  can  that  be  otherwise. 
When  institutions  the  very  heart,  the  very  essence  of  which 
consists  of  Personality,  are  studied,  analysed,  and  criticised 
by  people  who  by  their  professional  training  have  long 
incapacitated  themselves  for  any  mental  attitude  enabling 
us  to  appreciate  adequately  the  nature  and  effect  of  Per- 
sonality, the  result  can  be  nothing  short  of  absolute  failure. 
If  Bentley  had  essayed  to  write  a  history  of  Greek  art,  he 
would  have  covered  himself  with  ridicule.  So  have  the 
too  numerous  German,  Dutch,  French,  and  English  schol- 
ars who,  with  an  appearance  of  systematic  precision,  have 
invaded  every  syllable  of  the  New  Testament,  and  who, 
after  driving  out  from  each  dwelling-place  of  the  text  what- 
ever spiritual  or  human  element  there  is  in  it,  solemnly  de- 
clare that  the  New  Testament  is  a  mere  story-book,  Christ 
a  myth,  and_Christianity  a  fraud. 

The  reaction  is  setting  in.  People  learning  from  real 
scholars,  such  as  Mr.  Kenyon,  of  the  British  Museum,  how 
inept  and  pointless  have  been  most  of  the  admired  philo- 
logical tours  de  force  of  the  great  "  emendators  "  of  Greek 
and  Roman  classics,  are  prepared  to  assume  that  the  amaz- 
ing "  higher  critics,"  who,  with  solemn  divining-rods,  have 
torn  the  Pentateuch  and  other  parts  of  the  Bible  into  shreds 
belonging  to  different  "  sources,"  are  not  a  whit  better  than 
their  colleagues.  Higher  criticism  has  done  harm,  but, 
forsooth,  not  to  the  Bible,  but  to  the  critics  themselves. 
Whatever  sciolists  and  pedants  may  say  in  their  numerous 
journals  and  periodicals,  it  remains  certain  that  higher 
critics  have  not  contributed  anything  essential  towards  a 
true  historical  construction  of  the  greatest  figure  of  His- 
tory. 

A  new  and  deep  comprehension  of  the  Great  Phenom- 


viii  PREFACE 

enon  is  required.  The  cravings  of  the  mass  of  humanity 
are  still  unsatisfied.  They  want  a  new  life,  and  they  feel 
that  it  will  flow  principally  from  a  new  consideration  of 
the  life  of  Him  who  has  vitalised  and  spiritualised  the  great 
institutions  of  the  past.  This  new  life  of  Jesus,  in  its  total- 
ity, can  as  yet  not  be  written.  Mountains  of  prejudices 
and  erudite  sandhills  have  to  be  removed  first.  Mean- 
while, we  must  be  grateful  to  any  one  who  has,  at  the  cost 
of  much  disinterested  study,  drawn  at  least  one  aspect  of 
that  unique  Life  in  the  spirit  of  true  research  and  genuine 
enthusiasm  for  his  subject. 

Such  a  book  is  the  present.  Signor  Rosadi  has  ap- 
proached his  problem — apparently  a  purely  legal  one — 
with  a  warmth  of  sympathy,  with  a  breadth  of  philosophi- 
cal view,  with  a  purity  of  religious  sentiment  that  have 
rendered  his  book  not  only  a  noteworthy  contribution  to 
the  history  of  Jesus,  but  a  stimulating  and  (we  say  it  un- 
hesitatingly) an  edifying  work  in  the  best  sense  of  the  word. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  that  few  people  whose  Christianity  is  not 
a  mere  formula  to  them  will  leave  this  book  unread.  It  is 
one  of  those  great  preliminary  studies  that  may,  in  the  end, 
enable  us  to  see  in  its  entirety  the  immense  force  of  Good- 
ness and  Greatness  embodied  in  Him  whose  name  is  con- 
stantly on  our  lips,  and  whom  we  yet  know  so  little. 

EMIL  REICH. 
LONDON,  November  15,  1904. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 

PAGE 

The  Great  Injustice  of  the  Trial  of  Jesus — Long  Impunity  of 
the  Accused— His  Times— The  Prophets— The  Sects  of 
Palestine:  the  Pharisees;  the  Sadducees;  the  Essenes; 
the  Therapeutics — The  Rabbis  and  the  other  Zealots  of 
Israel — Popular  Agitation  against  Heresy,  the  Tribute, 
and  Taxation,  the  Inobservance  of  the  Law — The  Good 
News  of  Jesus — A  Complete  Social  Revolution — Cause 
of  His  Impunity 1 

CHAPTER   II 

The  Voice  in  the  Desert— The  Precursor  of  Jesus— The  Axe 
to  the  Root  of  the  Tree — The  Messiad  which  crossed 
from  the  Desert  into  Civilisation — Civil  Status  of  Jesus — 
His  Country — His  Parents — His  Precocious  Childhood — 
The  Family  Trade— The  Meeting  with  St.  John  the  Bap- 
tist— Beginning  of  the  Public  Life  of  Jesus  .  .  .12 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Doctrine  of  Jesus  from  the  Economic  Point  of  View — 
The  Hebrew  Tenure  of  Property — Wealth  Incompat- 
ible with  the  Kingdom  of  God — The  Attacks  and  Para- 
bles of  Jesus — The  Conclusions  of  His  Doctrine — New 
Definition  of  the  Meaning  of  Life — Substitution  of  the 
Christian  for  the  Pagan  Idea  of  Society — Neither  Nega- 

ix 


CONTENTS 


tion  nor  Distribution  of  Wealth,  but  its  Administration 
by  Owners  for  the  Benefit  of  All — Christianity  and  So- 
cialism— The  Language  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
and  the  Language  of  Jesus — The  Thoughts  and  Lan- 
guage of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  state  of  opinion  and  of 
legislation  concerning  wealth — Jesus  does  not  violate  in- 
stitutions and  laws,  but  raises  feelings  at  variance  with 
them — The  Rich  come  to  hate  Him  23 


CHAPTER   IV 

The  Religious  Doctrine  of  Jesus — His  Vehemence  against 
the  Desecrators  of  the  Temple — High  Emoluments  of  the 
Priests  and  Levites — The  Interests  of  the  Priesthood 
bound  up  with  those  of  the  Nation — The  Idea  of  the 
Theocratic  Constitution — The  Covenant  and  the  Mosaic 
Law — The  Sanctuary  in  Jerusalem  the  Centre  of  the 
National  Forces — Christ's  Attitude  neither  Theocratic 
nor  Nationalist — The  Fulfilment  of  the  Law  of  Moses — 
His  Resolute  Opposition  to  the  Officialism  Predominant 
in  Public  Worship— At  the  Well  of  Sichem— The  Fanat- 
ics join  the  Rich  in  their  Hatred  of  Jesus  .  .  .  .  42 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Political  Doctrine  of  Jesus — His  Indifference  to  Estab- 
lished Institutions — The  Law  founded  on  Force,  but  the 
Moral  Law  of  Jesus  confided  to  the  Liberty  of  the  Soul — 
Neither  Conflict  nor  Adhesion  between  Divine  and  Hu- 
man Authority — Tribute  to  Caesar — The  Individualism 
of  Jesus  representing  the  Integrity  of  Manhood  as  against 
the  Claims  of  Citizenship — Renunciation  of  the  Law  and 
Indifference  to  Institutions  do  not  conflict  with  True  Jus- 
tice or  the  Combative  Element  in  Life,  nor  with  Labour 
or  the  Progress  of  Civilisation — All  the  Less  Reason  was 
there  that  any  such  Conflict  should  exist  in  Ancient  Pales- 
tine— Jesus  did  not  compete  for  Political  Power  .  .  52 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  VI 


PAGE 


Propaganda  and  Associations — No  one  a  Prophet  in  his  own 
Country — At  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  and  Gennesaret — 
The  Twelve  Apostles — Men  and  Women  following  Him 
— The  Familiarity  and  Benignity  of  Jesus  at  Popular  Fes- 
tivals— Hypocrites  scandalised — Originality  and  Charm 
of  His  Words — His  Style — His  Invectives  against  Hypoc- 
risy, Instrument  of  Fraud  and  Disunion — Authoritative 
Admirers  —  First  Councils  adverse  to  Impunity — The 
Amours  of  Antipater  and  Herodias  hasten  the  Death  of 
the  Baptist — The  Tetrarch  wishes  to  see  Jesus  .  .  63 


CHAPTER   VII 

First  Mission  of  the  Apostles — The  Master  shows  the  Disci- 
ples the  Perils  of  Public  Life — Period  of  Vague  and  Cir- 
cumspect Propaganda — A  Deputation  of  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  comes  from  Jerusalem  to  question  Jesus — A 
Query  regarding  Inobservance  of  Form — The  Reply  of 
Jesus  against  Pedants  and  Hypocrites — Another  Mission 
of  Seventy  Disciples — Jesus  after  a  Long  Journey  braves 
the  Hostility  of  Jerusalem — The  Absolution  of  the  Adul- 
teress— Significance  of  this  Absolution  in  View  of  the 
Mosaic  and  Roman  Law — Opinion  regarding  Jesus  at 
Jerusalem — Refuge  in  John  the  Baptist's  Country  .  .  78 


CHAPTER   VIII 

A  Message  from  Bethany — The  House  of  Lazarus,  Martha, 
and  Mary — The  Fame  of  the  Resurrection  of  Lazarus — 
The  Elders  and  Priests  of  Jerusalem  convene  the  Sanhe- 
drin — The  Statutory  Necessity  that  some  one  should  die 
for  the  People — It  is  decided  that  Jesus  shall  die — Juridi- 
cal Consequences  of  this  Anticipatory  Decision — The 
Fame  of  other  Miracles  as  tending  to  render  Jesus  ame- 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

nable  to  the  Provisions  of  the  Penal  Law — The  Capital 
Charge  of  working  Miracles  on  the  Sabbath — Other 
Warnings  of  Danger — The  Supper  at  Bethany — Judas 
Iscariot  and  his  Treachery  as  treated  by  Tradition — 
Jesus  at  the  Epilogue  of  His  Mission — His  Joyous  Entry 
into  Jerusalem — Political  and  Juridical  Value  of  the 
Fact— Last  Conflicts  in  the  Temple— The  Last  Supper  .  92 


CHAPTER   IX 

The  Arrest — Judas  guides  the  Band  sent  to  apprehend  Jesus 
— The  Kiss  of  Betrayal — The  Beginning  of  an  Attempt 
at  Armed  Resistance — Another  Meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin 
preceding  the  Arrest — Juridical  Significance  of  this  Meet- 
ing— The  Order  and  Form  of  the  Arrest — Provocative 
Agents — The  Use  of  Spies  under  the  Mosaic  Law — The 
Roman  Authority  and  Military  Force  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Arrest — Incompetence  of  the  Jewish  Authority 
to  take  this  Step — Jesus  before  Annas — Formal  Arrest 
Unjustifiable — Intrigues  and  Interference  of  the  Ex-High 
Priest— The  Nepotism  of  the  Sacerdotal  Family— The 
High  Priest  Joseph  Caiaphas  .  .  .  .  .+.  . 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Political  Constitution  of  Syria  in  Regard  to  Roman  Law 
— The  Conquest  of  Syria  by  Pompey — The  reign  of 
Herod  the  Great,  and  the  Territorial  Division  made  Be- 
tween Archelaus,  Philip,  and  Herod  Antipater — The 
Principality  of  Archelaus  withdrawn  from  the  Latter  and 
transferred  to  the  Governor  before  the  Trial  of  Jesus — 
Consequences  of  the  Roman  Conquest  in  Financial  and 
Police  Matters,  and  in  the  Department  of  Justice — Colo- 
nies, Municipalities,  and  Provinces — The  Office  of  Gov- 
ernor, and  of  the  Procurators  officiating  as  Vice-Gov- 
ernors — The  Jurisdiction  of  Vice-Governors  in  Cases 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PAGE 

involving  Capital  Punishment — The  General  Opinion  re- 
garding the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Sanhedrin  refuted — Why 
the  Judgment  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  an  Abuse  of  Power 
— The  Action  of  Justice  in  Inverse  Ratio  to  the  progress 
of  Humanity — Why  Judges  Untrammelled  by  the  Spirit 
and  Interests  of  Conservatism  would  not  have  condemned 
Jesus — Class  Justice  and  Political  Offences — The  San- 
hedrin usurped  Roman  Jurisdiction  in  Order  to  defend 
Class  Interests  and  Beliefs — Why  the  Vice-Governor,  left 
Free  in  his  Jurisdiction,  should  have  collected  the  Proofs, 
and  conducted  the  Whole  Trial  himself — The  Arrest  of 
the  Person  charged  was  also  a  Matter  within  his  Juris- 
diction .  .  131 


CHAPTER    XI 

The  Convening  of  the  Sanhedrin — The  Hour  of  the  Meeting 
— Prohibition  of  the  Mosaic  Law  against  Procedure  in 
Capital  Cases  at  Night — Divergence  in  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels— The  Exegetic  Observations  of  D.  F.  Strauss — The 
Gospel  Narrative  of  the  Trial  of  Jesus  before  the  Sanhe- 
drin— It  is  concluded  from  it  that  all  the  Proceedings 
before  the  Sanhedrin  in  this  Matter  were  Nocturnal — 
Significance  of  this  Irregularity  in  View  of  the  Rigorous 
Observance  of  Legal  Forms  by  the  Hebrews — How  the 
Trial  terminated  with  another  Irregularity,  inasmuch  as 
the  Sentence  could  not  Legally  be  pronounced  on  the 
Same  Day  as  that  on  which  the  Trial  closed  .  .  .  152 


CHAPTER   XII 

The  Constitution  of  the  Sanhedrin — Historical  Lacunes  and 
Conjectures — The  Biblical  Judges — The  King  and  the 
Elders  and  Judges — The  Institutions  of  David  and  Je- 
hoshaphat — Mention  in  Deuteronomy  of  a  Supreme  Mag- 
istracy at  Jerusalem — Necessity  of  consulting  the  Talmud 


xiv  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


for  determining  the  Hebraic  Judicial  Organisation — Tri- 
bunals of  Three  Grades — The  Capital  Jurisdiction  of  the 
Grand  Sanhedrin  and  its  Particular  Attributions — The 
Nasi,  the  Scribes,  the  Shoterim — Suppression  of  the 
Greater  Privileges  of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  .  162 

CHAPTER   XIII 

The  Minutes  of  the  Audience  of  the  Sanhedrin — The  Pagan 
Sources  upon  the  Life  and  Trial  of  Jesus — Critical  Con- 
clusions regarding  the  Form  and  Contents  of  the  Gospels 
— The  Gospel  Texts  upon  the  Trial  before  the  Sanhedrin 
— The  Two  Charges  brought  against  Jesus :  Sedition  and 
Blasphemy — How  the  Sanhedrin  proceeded  by  Elimina- 
tion, abandoning  the  First  Charge  in  Default  of  Proof  and 
taking  the  Second  from  the  Confession  of  the  Accused — 
Why  the  Confession  did  not  dispense  the  Judges  from  ex- 
amining Witnesses — Why  the  Confession  would  not  in 
Itself  constitute  an  Indictable  Offence  .  .  .  .169 

CHAPTER  XIV 

Wherein  the  two  Charges  are  examined  with  Reference  to 
their  Contents — It  is  shown  that  the  Charge  of  Sedition 
was  False  and  that  of  Blasphemy  Unjust — Confutation  of 
the  Thesis  of  Renan  that  it  was  the  First  and  not  the  Sec- 
ond Charge  which  caused  the  Condemnation  before  the 
Sanhedrin — How  Jesus  proclaimed  Himself  the  Messiah 
— Moral  and  Historical  Conception  of  the  Messiah — How 
the  Messiah  was  understood  and  awaited  by  the  Contem- 
poraries of  Jesus  in  Various  Manners — How  the  Judges 
of  the  Sanhedrin  neglected  their  Duty  in  not  raising  the 
Problem  of  Messianic  Identity  with  regard  to  their  Pris- 
oner— Contemporary  Judaism  and  Christianity  success- 
ively prove  that  this  Problem  ought  not  to  have  been  set 
on  one  side  by  a  Foregone  Conclusion — The  Sanhedrin 
conducted  a  Conspiracy,  not  a  Trial  .  .  .  .184 


CONTENTS  xv 

CHAPTER  XV 

PAGE 

In  which  it  is  shown  that  the  Sentence  ascribed  to  the  Sanhe- 
drinwasnot  a  Judicial  Sentence — How  in  the  Alleged  Sen- 
tence there  is  no  Indication  of  the  Kind  of  Punishment — 
How  not  one  of  the  Evangelists  treats  of  a  Real  Sentence 
— Exposition  of  the  Mosaic  Penal  System  in  order  to  de- 
duce what  would  have  been  the  Punishment  applicable  to 
Jesus — The  Various  Forms  of  Capital  Punishment: 
Hanging,  Stoning,  Burning,  Decapitation — Preventive 
Imprisonment — Fine  and  Flagellation — The  Crimes  Pun- 
ishable with  Death — How  for  the  Crime  of  Blasphemy 
stoning  was  decreed — It  is  concluded  that  had  Jesus 
been  condemned  by  the  Sanhedrin  He  would  have  been 
stoned  .  200 


CHAPTER    XVI 

Lucius  Pontius  Pilate — His  Spanish  Origin — At  the  Court  of 
Tiberius — How  his  Shameful  Marriage  caused  his  Nom- 
ination as  Procurator  of  Judsea — His  wife  Claudia  joins 
him  in  his  Province — The  Tenacious  and  Vehement 
Character  of  Pilate  contrasted  with  that  Imagined  by 
Tradition — His  Violent  Treatment  and  Provocation  of 
the  Jews — End  of  his  Official  Career  caused  by  his  final 
Deeds  of  Violence — An  Allusion  of  Dante  .  215 


CHAPTER  XVII 

In  which  it  is  shown  that  the  Reputed  Judges  of  Jesus  acted 
as  Prosecutors  before  Pilate — Scruples  of  Levitic  Con- 
tamination close  the  Gate  of  the  Prsetorium  to  them — 
Better  Determination  of  the  Day  upon  which  these  Oc- 
currences took  place — Pilate's  Tribune — How  an  Accu- 
sation but  not  a  Condemnation  upon  the  Part  of  the  Jews 
is  spoken  of — How  the  Charge  of  Blasphemy  was  not 
Maintained,  but  the  Already  Abandoned  Charge  of  Se- 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

dition  was  once  more  pressed — The  Examination  of  Je- 
sus before  Pilate — How  Pilate  concluded  that  he  found 
no  Crime  in  Him 230 

CHAPTER  XVin 

From  Pilate  to  Herod— From  Herod  to  Pilate— How  the  Te- 
trarch  could  not  have  had  Jurisdiction  over  Jesus,  al- 
though a  Galilean — Herod  questions  the  Prisoner,  who 
does  not  answer — Meaning  of  His  Silence — How  the 
Scribes  and  Priests  repeated  the  Charges  before  Herod 
— Jesus  is  sent  back  to  Pilate  in  a  White  Garment — The 
Second  Expedient  of  a  Simple  Chastisement — Its  Failure, 
and  the  Recourse  of  the  Governor  to  a  Third  Expedient  .  242 

CHAPTER  XIX 

The  pardoning  of  Barabbas — What  we  know  about  him — It 
is  denied  that  this  Pardon  was  founded  on  Mosaic  Law — 
Its  Foundation  is  looked  for  in  Roman  Law — The  Vari- 
ous Extinctions  of  the  Penal  Sanction  :  Expiation,  Death, 
Pardon,  Indulgence,  Public  and  Private  Rescission — It 
is  shown  how  Pilate  could  have  only  set  Barabbas  Free 
by  Virtue  of  a  Private  Rescission — The  Liberation  of 
Barabbas  should  have  taken  place  in  Consequence  of  a 
Demand  from  the  Prosecutors,  and  not  at  the  Pleasure  of 
the  Judge  .  .  .  .  250 

CHAPTER  XX 

How  Barabbas  was  preferred  to  Jesus— The  Message  of  the 
Wife  of  Pilate — Her  Prophetic  Dream — Pilate  insists  on 
the  Alternative  :  Christ  or  Barabbas  ? — How  the  Mock- 
ing Spirit  of  the  Governor  makes  Jest  of  the  King  to  be 
crucified,  and  the  Servile  Character  of  the  Jews  who  in- 


CONTENTS  xvii 

PACK 

voked  the  Friendship  of  the  Emperor — The  Unanimous 
Cry  of  "Crucify  Him" — How  not  even  an  Echo  was 
heard  of  the  late  Hosannas — The  Reason  of  this  is  found 
in  the  Disappointment  of  the  People  that  looked  for  a 
Miracle — How  the  Identical  Popular  Phenomenon  was 
renewed  at  Florence  with  regard  to  Fra  Savonarola — The 
Phenomenon  regarded  from  the  Positive  Point  of  View 
of  Collective  Suggestion,  and  from  that  of  the  Disorderly 
Crowd  .  .  .  266 


CHAPTER   XXI 

Pilate  washes  his  Hands — Meaning  of  this  Judicial  Usage — 
The  Crowd  insists  Anew — The  Last  Stand  of  the  Gover- 
nor— Ecce  Homo — Jesus  handed  over  to  the  Priest — This 
Handing-Over  was  the  sole  Form  of  Condemnation — 
The  Responsibility  for  the  Death  of  Jesus  falls  upon  the 
Governor — The  Roman  Soldiers  come  at  this  Point  upon 
the  Scene  for  the  First  Time — The  Scourging  from  a  Ju- 
dicial Point  of  View — The  Prisoner  travestied — The 
Crown  of  Thorns — The  Order  of  Procedure  in  Roman 
Trials — Jesus'  Trial  does  not  correspond  to  any  Normal 
Form  of  Proceeding  :  It  was  a  Political  Murder  .  .  282 

CHAPTER   XXII 

The  Cross — The  Procession  towards  Calvary — How  the 
Three  Prisoners  carried  the  Implements  of  their  own 
Punishment — Simon  of  Cyrene — The  Two  Thieves — The 
Women  who  followed  Jesus  and  His  Mother — Golgotha 
— The  Cross  as  a  Penalty  of  Roman  and  not  of  Mosaic 
Law — The  Superscription  of  the  Offence  written  above 
the  Cross — Crucifixion  of  Jesus — The  Beverage — How 
the  Garments  of  the  Executed  passed  by  Right  of  Law 
to  the  Executioners — The  breaking  of  the  Bones  of  the 
Crucified  Prisoners — The  Last  Words  of  Jesus — His 
Death  .  ...  .299 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS 


Cjje  Crtal  of 


CHAPTER   I 

The  Great  Injustice  of  the  Trial  of  Jesus — Long  Impunity  of  the 
Accused— His  Times— The  Prophets— The  Sects  of  Palestine: 
the  Pharisees;  the  Sadducees;  the  Essenes;  the  Therapeu- 
tics— The  Rabbis  and  the  other  Zealots  of  Israel — Popular 
Agitation  against  Heresy,  the  Tribute,  and  Taxation,  the 
Inobservance  of  the  Law — The  Good  News  of  Jesus — A 
Complete  Social  Revolution — Cause  of  his  Impunity. 

IN  the  year  of  Rome  783,  a  carpenter  of  Nazareth  was 
arrested  at  Gethsemane,  tried  at  Jerusalem,  and  put  to 
death  on  Golgotha  as  guilty  of  sedition. 

Grasping  priests  denounced  Him,  false  witnesses  ac- 
cused Him,  judges  of  bad  faith  condemned  Him ;  a 
friend  betrayed  Him ;  no  one  defended  Him ;  He  was 
dragged  with  every  kind  of  contumely  and  violence 
to  the  malefactor's  cross,  where  He  spoke  the  last  words 
of  truth  and  brotherhood  among  men.  It  was  one  of 
the  greatest  and  the  most  memorable  acts  of  injustice. 

For  centuries  it  will  afford  to  thinkers  and  believers 
subject  for  meditation,  as  the  human  and  divine  prob- 
lem; people  of  every  race  and  every  faith  will  demand 
vengeance  for  it ;  the  prisoner  of  Gethsemane  will  be  for 
ever  unified  with  God,  and  the  very  cross  of  His  infamy 
will  become  the  purest  and  the  highest  symbol  of  hope 
and  revolution. 


2  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

He  whom  they  condemned  was  innocent:  blameless 
in  His  manners,  simple  in  His  ways,  inaccessible  in  his 
aspirations,  He  preached  one  great  law  of  love  and 
solidarity  for  the  government  of  the  world ;  He  loved 
the  poor  and  humble  and  made  brethren  of  the  sinful  and 
unhappy ;  He  shunned  pomp  and  power,  and  declared  to 
those  who  besought  Him  for  worldly  advantage  that 
His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  Yet  He  paid  the 
tribute  due  to  Caesar  and  was  a  good  citizen.1  But  He 
had  frequently  spoken  against  the  hypocrisy  of  the 
Pharisees,  which  manifested  itself  in  every  social  con- 
vention; sometimes  He  assailed  public  worship  and  the 
law  as  leading  to  nothing  but  contradiction  and  false- 
hood ;  and  He  had  cried  still  louder  "  Woe  to  the  rich," 
while  announcing  to  the  poor  a  speedy  betterment  of 
their  condition.  He  had  counted  the  tears  and  the  ini- 
quity of  the  earth,  and  promised  as  compensation  and  as 
a  contrast  the  happiness  and  the  justice  of  heaven.  This 
propaganda  of  ideas  and  designs  was  bound  to  be  dis- 
tasteful, as  it  was,  to  the  greater  part  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  interested  in  the  welfare  and  power  of  the  nation, 
and  could  only  transgress,  as  it  was  intended  to  trans- 
gress, its  laws,  which  were  ill  interpreted  in  the  fury  of 
politics  and  the  delirium  of  superstition.  Party  passion 
has  always  claimed  two  victims,  liberty  and  innocence, 
and  has  never  overthrown  two  tormentors,  persecution 
and  calumny. 

Jesus — as  the  innocent  victim  of  Nazareth  was  called 
— had  therefore  to  die. 

And  in  our  day,  any  one  speaking  with  His  licence 
and  favour,  and  even  gifted  with  His  soul  and  eloquence, 
would  rather  be  likely  to  fall  a  hundred  times  into  the 
clutches  of  the  political  authorities  than  to  gain  the 
good  graces  of  the  magistrates.  On  every  particular 
occasion  he  would  be  arrested  as  a  measure  of  public 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  3 

safety,  as  we  now  call  it;  he  would  be  warned,  under 
the  suspicion  that  he  contemplated  the  commission  of 
political  offences,  as  is  also  customarily  done;  he  would 
be  sent  into  forced  domicile,  as  at  present;  and  even 
his  friendly  consorting  with  twelve  followers  of  the  new 
idea  would  be  denounced  as  an  association  of  malefactors 
— all  most  admirable  devices  which  nineteen  centuries 
of  continuous  and  strenuous  progress  have  generously 
bestowed  upon  worn-out  humanity.  Jesus  was  not 
greatly  disturbed  during  His  open  and  fearless  mission, 
although  never  lost  sight  of  and  always  marked  for  the 
cross. 

And  yet,  even  those  days  were  not  tranquil  and  happy ! 
The  Hebrew  people — converted  too  late  from  the  no- 
madic life  to  national  life,  and  passing  too  quickly  from 
the  patriarchal  state  of  a  spontaneous  and  suitable 
equality  to  the  juridical  system,  in  the  first  place,  of 
property  vested  in  the  family  and  then  in  the  individual 
— lived  in  a  condition  of  great  tension  from  the  captivity 
of  Babylon  to  the  Roman  conquest.  Egoist,  sophistical, 
conservative,  and  superstitious,  it  was  with  bitter  feel- 
ings that  the  Hebrew  people  saw  commerce  and  wealth 
develop  and  the  luxury  of  Tyre  and  Babylon  penetrate 
into  Israel.  It  grieved  their  souls  to  see  thousands  of 
men  toiling  in  the  caves  of  Judah,  in  the  forests  of 
Lebanon,  and  in  the  galleys  of  Oman  in  order  to  pro- 
cure for  a  few  idlers  the  ease  and  luxury  of  the  towns, 
and  for  some  libertines  the  pleasures  and  diversions  of 
obscene  harems.  They  saw  with  indignation  that  when 
Rome  made  a  new  province  out  of  their  country,  the 
Jewish  aristocratic  class  sided  with  the  sacrilegious  and 
idolatrous  conquerors,  while  the  mass  of  the  people,  re- 
maining faithful  to  the  old  traditions,  manifested  the 
same  hatred  against  aristocrats  and  strangers  alike.2 
And  lo!  in  the  midst  of  this  grief-stricken  people 


4  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

prophets  arose  from  day  to  day  who  directed  the  fervour 
of  hope  and  the  gesture  of  invocation  towards  a  new 
era,  not  only  of  political,  but  human  regeneration;  a 
state  of  perfect  innocence  and  universal  palingenesis; 
a  golden  age,  not  to  be  sought  as  by  the  peoples  of 
classic  antiquity  in  the  past,  but  to  be  expected  in  a 
distant  future,  foretold  in  canticles  and  visions,  in  suf- 
fering and  in  faith ; 3  and  the  Israelitish  prophets,  ob- 
serves Ernest  Renan  in  his  historical  work — much  more 
authoritative  than  his  eccentric,  biography  of  Jesus — 
were  ardent  publicists  of  the  kind  now  called  anarchists, 
fanatics  on  behalf  of  social  justice  and  solemnly  pro- 
claiming  that  if  the  world  is  neither  just  nor  likely  to 
become  so,  then  it  were  better  destroyed — a  point  of 
view  no  doubt  very  false,  but  still  fruitful  of  results, 
since,  like  all  desperate  doctrines,  like  the  Russian 
Nihilism  of  our  own  day,  it  tends  to  produce  heroism 
and  a  great  awakening  of  human  forces.4 

The  prophets  were  the  speakers  of  the  various  ten- 
dencies in  action.  The  word  designating  them  only  meant 
orator,  and  the  faculty  of  divination  commonly  attrib- 
uted to  the  prophetic  vocation  as  synonymous  with  it 
was  only  secondary  and  accessory.  According  to  bibli- 
cal tradition,  Moses  lacked  fluency  of  speech,  and  God 
associated  his  brother  Aaron  with  him  as  prophet.5 
Miriam  was  called  prophetess  when  she  went  singing 
and  playing  on  the  cithara  the  immortal  song  of  victory.6 
The  prophets  represented  liberty  of  speech  as  in  our 
day  the  press  represents  liberty  of  opinion.  It  burst 
forth,  unprepared,  unforeseen,  undisciplined  like  genius ; 
it  was  the  genius  of  the  popular  conscience.  A  prophet 
showed  himself  in  public  places,  on  the  threshold  of  the 
temple,  before  the  people,  among  the  priests,  at  the  foot 
of  the  throne,  and  animadverted  freely  upon  things  and 
persons.  His  right  was  founded  in  the  law  which  fixed 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  5 

one  sole  limit  to  his  liberty — respect  for  the  monotheistic 
idea  and  for  the  name  of  Jehovah. 

Uncompromising  above  all,  more  Israelitish  than 7 
Moses,  the  Pharisees  formed  a  Gnostic  sect,  the  strongest 
and  yet  the  most  dangerous  privileged  commentator  of 
traditional  truth.  Claiming  to  be  exclusive  depositaries 
of  the  moral  tradition  received  by  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai, 
the  Pharisees  also  claimed  to  be  alone  able  to  interpret 
the  signification  of  the  sacred  texts,  and  violently  op- 
posed any  who  gave  them  a  different  interpretation, 
whereas  among  other  sects  the  right  of  free  interpreta- 
tion was  admitted.  Sophists,  pedants,  hypocrites,  fac- 
tious formalists  and  formulists,  and  of  a  grasping  na- 
ture, they  studied  only  to  obscure  the  law,  which  in  their 
hands  became  the  worst  weapon  of  persecution  and  im- 
posture. They  believed  in  the  struggle  between  the 
empire  of  good  and  that  of  evil,  and  regarded  as  a  par- 
ticular domain  of  evil  the  hegemony  of  Rome  over  their 
nation,  not  from  any  spirit  of  independence  and  dignity, 
but  solely  because  they  perceived  in  it  a  permanent  sin 
of  idolatry.  They  appeared  in  public  with  their  faces 
covered,  some,  indeed,  with  closed  eyes,  in  order  to  see 
no  woman — while  others,  by  way  of  showing  extreme 
contrition  daubed  themselves  with  foetid  bitumen.  All 
prayed  in  public,  taking  the  first  places  in  the  synagogues 
and  giving  alms  by  sound  of  trumpet,  a  practice  with 
which  Jesus,  in  His  memorable  words,  one  day  reproached 
them.8 

Less  fanatical  and  more  positive,  the  Sadducees  re- 
pudiated tradition  and  observed  the  written  law  with 
discretion.  They  thought  that  God  did  not  intervene 
overmuch  in  the  affairs  of  men,  and  supposed  that  the 
soul  died  with  the  body,  although  that  did  not  prevent 
the  principal  priests  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  from 
belonging  to  this  sect.  They  accepted  foreign  domina- 


6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

tion  as  a  means  of  uniting  Hebraic  and  foreign  culture, 
noble  examples  of  the  latter  having  already  been  adopted 
by  the  Jewish  school  at  Alexandria.9 

Incomparably  the  best  among  all  the  sectaries,  the 
Essenes  formed  one  of  those  mystic  schools  based  upon 
renunciation  and  community  of  goods.  Devoted  to  the 
principle  of  Zoroaster  that  the  soul  should  be  freed  from 
the  trammels  and  influences  of  the  body,  they  lived,  re- 
tired from  towns,  in  country  places.  They  disciplined 
their  bodies  by  fasting  and  mortifications,  shunned  trade 
and  its  corruptions,  kept  no  slaves  and  gained  no  wealth, 
dedicating  themselves  to  work  and  sharing  the  fruit  of 
it  in  common.  They  disdained  sophistical  theology  and 
studied  natural  science,  medicine  in  the  first  place.  Thus 
they  made  profession  both  of  medicine  and  philanthropy, 
helping  the  sick  and  needy.10 

Nat  very  dissimilar,  but  nevertheless  distinct  from 
,them,;  the  Therapeutics  based  their  origin  on  Western 
tradition  transmitted  by  the  Alexandrine  and  particu- 
larly by  the  Pythagorian  school.  More  inclined  to  con- 
templation than  to  action,  their  rule  differed  from  that 
of  the  Essenes,  not  so  much  by  metaphysical  specula- 
tion, as  by  a  still  more  chastened  mode  of  life. 

The  rabbis  who  taught  in  the  synagogues,  though  not 
forming  close  sects  but  schools,  did  not  confine  them- 
selves to  didactic  teaching,  but  held  disputations  con- 
cerning the  civil  and  religious  interpretation  of  the  law, 
and  contributed  by  their  daily  arguments  to  open  up 
new  horizons  to  popular  hopes  and  superstitions.  Anti- 
gon  of  Soco,  Jesus  son  of  Sirach,  and  above  all  the  gentle 
and  clear-sighted  Hillel,  who  preceded  the  Nazarene  by 
halfxa  century,  had  already  professed  elevated  ideas  of 
equality  and  fraternity — of  love  of  God  and  rest  in  Him 
— in  contrast  to  the  officialism  and  hypocrisy  of  the 
dominant  form  of  worship. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  7 

And  all  these  schools,  sometimes  differing  and  often 
completely  at  variance  among  themselves,  sprang  not 
only  from  the  role  of  the  prophet  of  antiquity,  recon- 
stituted in  the  Judaism  of  the  later  days,  passing 
through  the  hazardous  vicissitudes  of  the  Herodian 
dynasty  and  the  Roman  conquest,  not  only  from  the 
foreign  breeding  of  the  Hebrew  exiles  returned  to  their 
country,  but  also  from  the  particularly  ascetic  bent  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  which  must  be  considered  as  a  pre- 
disposing influence  of  no  minor  importance. 

Those  who  may  be  acquainted  with  the  localities  of 
this  history  will  have  observed  how  natural  character- 
istics of  a  singular  kind  harmonise  with  a  singular 
people.  "  The  saddest  region  in  the  world,"  says  Renan, 
under  the  impression  of  a  painful  sojourn  there,  "  is 
perhaps  that  which  surrounds  Jerusalem.  Jewish  towns 
are  generally  mere  agglomerations  of  houses  built  with- 
out a  trace  of  style,  and  the  country  is  arid,  poor,  and 
dreary.  Everything  appears  to  be  the  work  of  an  agri- 
cultural people  devoid  of  artistic  instinct,  debarred  from 
industry,  indifferent  to  beauty  of  form,  but  solely  and 
profoundly  idealist.  And  just  by  reason  of  this  singu- 
larity of  nature  the  life  of  the  Jewish  people,  egoist 
as  it  was,  was  not  limited  by  the  coarse  and  unthinking 
materialism  of  our  own  agriculturists,  but  became 
spiritualised  in  a  continuous  dream  and  in  an  indefinite 
ideal.  Greek  art,  by  means  of  poetry  and  sculpture, 
had  already  given  the  purest  and  most  delicate  images 
of  life,  but  the  stylus  and  chisel  of  the  Greeks  repre- 
sented a  nature  without  backgrounds,  without  distant 
horizons,  without  glimpses  of  heaven.  There  was  no 
art  whatever  in  Palestine,  but,  as  compensation,  this 
squalid  and  contemplative  people  clung  to  the  gigantic 
vision  of  ages  past — a  vision  which  rejuvenated  from 
day  to  day  its  decrepit  life.  "  Man,"  says  Renan,  pur- 


8  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

suing  the  same  line  of  thought,  "  never  grasped  the 
problem  of  his  destiny  with  more  desperate  courage  or 
more  resistless  determination."  n 

Not  all  the  Zealots,  for  whom  Moses  was  the  great 
exemplar,  confined  themselves  to  professing  and  incul- 
cating their  doctrines;  the  greater  part  of  them  gath- 
ered together  in  strong  groups  and  elaborated  dangerous 
plots  often  ending  in  revolt.  A  long  series  of  Roman 
Governors  from  Coponius  to  Pilate  vainly  strove  to 
drown  in  blood  this  fiery  furnace,  within  which  seethed 
the  tears  and  sweat  of  a  wretched  people.  But  popular 
agitations  were  nearly  all  based  upon  some  political  or 
religious  programme,  and  consequently  resolved  them- 
selves into  mere  party  struggles.  One  day  heresy  was 
assailed  in  connection  with  Herodian  works  of  art,  and 
the  Roman  votive  shields  which  appeared  to  smack  of 
idolatry,  while  the  sect  of  Judah  son  of  Sariphaeus,  and 
of  Matthew  son  of  Margaloth,  put  forth  nothing  but 
this  slight  programme.  At  another  time  fierce  opposi- 
tion was  offered  to  the  tribute  law  applied  in  the  coun- 
tries recently  conquered  by  Rome — which  was  regarded 
as  an  impiety,  inasmuch  as  no  Lord  could  be  recognised 
but  God,  and  this  was  the  sole  argument  used  by  the 
school  of  Judah  of  Gaulon.  Others  offered  opposition 
to  the  legality  of  the  tax,  while  one  leader,  Judah  of 
Gamala,  associated  with  a  Pharisee  named  Zadok,  formed 
a  party  to  work  solely  on  this  line  of  attack.  Then 
vengeance  was  sworn  against  whomsoever  should  trans- 
gress the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  Zealots  were  pious  cut- 
throats and  assassins  (not  an  exceptional  case  in  the  his- 
tory of  religious  criminality  12)  who  imposed  upon  them- 
selves the  sacred  obligation  of  killing  all  transgressors 
of  the  law.13 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  these  tendencies  and  these  con- 
trasts that  Jesus  was  born  and  rose  to  manhood. 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  9 

He  came  in  the  fulness  of  time,  and  yet  no  one  was  less 
than  He  of  His  time.  No  one  felt  more  than  He  its  his- 
torical conditions,  and  yet  he  dominated  them.  No  one 
forded  the  stream  of  centuries  and  epitomised  in  His 
regenerating  word  the  infinite  course  of  history  like  the 
martyr  of  Galilee.14  He  came  to  give  to  the  world,  and 
to  Rome  herself,  what  men  knew  not  of,  or  denied — 
equality  before  God.  Alexander,  Caesar,  Augustus, 
Tiberius,  or  the  reactionaries  who  might  have  rebelled 
against  them,  would  have  failed  in  this  great  enterprise, 
since,  although  one  or  the  other  might  perhaps  have 
succeeded  in  imposing  it  with  poor  and  transitory  result, 
they  would  not  have  understood  how  to  indicate  it  simply 
while  leaving  it  to  fulfil  itself.  All  the  incomparable 
power  of  Jesus  is  in  this  truth. 

He  announced  the  good  news  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
but  His  God  is  not  the  national  God  of  Israel,  nor  the 
Lord  of  Hosts,  nor  does  He  sit  enthroned  amid  clouds 
and  lightning.  He  is  the  Father  who  is  in  heaven.15 
In  the  presence  of  this  fundamental  affirmation  all  men 
are  brethren,  being  sons  of  one  and  the  same  Father, 
and  there  are  no  longer  any  Hebrews,  nor  Samaritans, 
nor  common  people,  nor  outcast  classes :  humanity  is  one 
people  and  one  family,  whom  God  loves  and  watches  over 
from  heaven  with  a  Father's  impartial  eye.  Here  is  the 
mighty  lever  of  a  whole  social  revolution. 

The  domain  of  Jesus  is  not  confined  to  the  rights  and 
needs  of  one  people  only,  but  embraces  the  aspirations 
and  aims  of  humanity.  Hence  He  founded  no  political 
party  and  headed  no  religious  faction;  He  propounded 
no  judicial  system  nor  any  economic  rule  in  substitution 
of  contemporary  law  and  government.  Even  wealth, 
which  is  the  negation  of  His  kingdom,  He  does  not  seek 
to  claim  nor  to  regulate  or  socialise,  contrary  to  what 
has  been  wrongly  said  in  His  name  by  some  in  our  day. 


10  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

But  He  deprived  it  of  all  honour,  all  value,  and  re- 
pudiated it.  He  overcomes  the  world  because  He  knows 
how  to  renounce  it. 

His  programme  is  rather  a  reaction  against  than  the 
evolution  of  preceding  popular  movements;  heaven 
divides  Him  from  the  Essenes,  the  idea  of  country  from 
the  Gaulonites,  intelligence  from  the  laws  of  the  Phari- 
sees,16 and  Jesus,  perhaps  as  an  intended  contrast  to 
the  school  of  Sariphseus,  declares  that  His  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world.  It  may  have  been  that,  in  similar  con- 
tradiction to  the  sect  of  the  Gaulonites,  He  enjoined  the 
rendering  unto  Caesar  of  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and, 
from  a  similar  antithesis  to  the  party  of  Gamaliel,  paid 
the  state  tithe. 

This  great  and  incomprehensible  vastness  of  doctrine 
must  have  been  the  first  cause  of  the  impunity  enjoyed 
for  three  years  by  the  public  discourses  of  Jesus,  as  in 
our  own  day  the  vast  movement  of  an  economic  party 
could  more  easily  escape  check  than  the  subtle  action  of 
an  anti-constitutional  party.  The  latter  is  a  nearer  and 
more  concentrated  enemy  than  the  former,  and  every 
government  defending  itself  from  its  enemies  has  the 
shortsightedness  of  the  egoist,  and  takes  the  uncertain 
measures  characteristic  of  timidity.  Not  least  among 
the  causes  of  impunity  were,  no  doubt,  the  attitude  and 
customs  of  this  people,  unquiet  by  nature,  necessitous  by 
origin,  and  the  prey  of  a  continual  and  irrepressible 
agitation  connected  with  the  problem  of  its  existence 
and  destiny.  Spontaneous  and  valid  reason  was  also 
afforded  by  the  manner  of  life  which  was  made  cause  of 
reproach  against  Jesus  by  His  enemies — by  His  pure  and 
simple  youth  and  His  missionary  action,  void  of  all 
finality  and  mundane  competition.  Later  on  we  shall 
see  how  a  malignant  pretext  and  a  calumnious  charge 
were  put  forward  in  order  to  bring  into  the  category  of 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  11 

external,  imputable  facts  an  ideal,  superhuman  work  that 
appealed  solely  to  the  hearts  of  men,  wherein  the  Galilean 
had  founded  His  kingdom  and  kindled  His  revolution. 


NOTES 

1  Under  the  title  of  Jesus  bon  citoyen  Bossuet  wrote  a  chapter 
of  his  Politique  tiree  de  VEcriture  sainte. 

2  Renan,  Histoire  du  peuple  d*  Israel,  vol.  ii.  pp.  170,  171,  181; 
Nitti,  //  socicdismo  Cattolico,  cap.  iii. 

3  Cf .  Castelli,  II  Messia  secondo  gli  Ebrei,  Firenze,  Le  Monnier, 
1874,  pp.  25,  31;  Chiappelli,  Nuove  Pagine  sul  Cristianesimo 
antico,  Firenze,  Le  Monnier,  1902,  p.  43. 

4  Op.  cit.  Preface,  p.  3. 

5  Exodus  vii.  1,  2. 

6  Exodus  xv.  20,21. 

7  Deuteronomy,  xiii.  1,  3,  6,  8,  xviii.  15,  18,  20.     Cf.  Levi, 
Sulla  teocrazia  mosaica,  Firenze,  Le  Monnier,  pp.  191-220. 

8  Josephus  Flavius,  De  bello  jud.  n.  viii.  1-8;   Antiq.  xin.  ix. 
7,  18,  4,  5,  xvm.  i.  1,  3,  4. 

9  Ibid.  Antiq.  xin.  ix.  7,  xvm.  ii.  2;  De  bello  jud.  11.  viii.  1,  8. 

10  Ibid.  Antiq.  xm.  ix.  7,  xvm.  ii.  1;  De  bello  jud.  n.  viii.  2-7; 
Pliny,  Hist.  nat.  v.  17;  Adv.  har.  cap.  xix.  1,  2. 

11  Vie  de  Jesus,  ch.  iv. 

12  Cf.  Corre,  L'ethnographie  criminelle,  Arch,  delle  Trad.  Pop. 
xii.  130,  Palermo,  1893;  Lombroso,  L'uomo  deling,  i.  52.  Annec- 
chino,  Divinita  criminali,  p.  9;    De  Rotterdamo,  Elogio  della 
pazzia. 

13  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Cajum,  par.  38;  Josephus,  Antiq.  xm.  par.  2. 

14  Cf.  Chiappelli,  Nuove  Pagine  sul  Cristian.  ant.  p.  76. 

15  S.  Matthew  v.  45,  48,  passim. 

16  Petruccelli  Delia  Gattina,  Memorie  di  Giuda,  ii.  184.     To 
this  Italian  author,  unjustly  forgotten,  because  of  no  common 
worth,  we  owe  the  neatness  and  elegance  of  the  above  passage, 
together  with  the  originality  and  acuteness  of  continuous  obser- 
vations, which  are  set  like  gems  in  common  metal  in  the  romantic 
matter  of  this  book,  Memorie  di  Giuda — material  which,  in  view 
of  delicacy  of  the  subject  to  be  treated,  is  of  poor  alloy. 


CHAPTER   II 

The  Voice  in  the  Desert — The  Precursor  of  Jesus — The  Axe  to 
the  Root  of  the  Tree — The  Messiad  which  crossed  from 
the  Desert  into  Civilisation — Civil  Status  of  Jesus — His 
Country — His  Parents — His  Precocious  Childhood — The 
Family  Trade— The  Meeting  with  St.  John  the  Baptist- 
Beginning  of  the  Public  Life  of  Jesus. 

A  STRANGE  pilgrim  wandered  in  the  year  28  of  our  era 
in  the  solitudes  of  the  desert  of  Judaea  on  the  left  bank 
of  the  Jordan.1  Wearing  a  leathern  girdle  about  his 
loins  and  subsisting  upon  locusts  and  wild  honey,  he 
exhibited  in  his  mode  of  life  the  repentance  and  self- 
sacrifice  which  he  taught  to  those  who  approached  him.2 

"  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand1 — 
And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  to  the  root  of  the  tree; 
therefore  every  tree  which  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit 
is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire.  He  that  hath 
two  coats  let  him  impart  to  him  that  hath  none,  and 
he  that  hath  meat  let  him  do  likewise."  3  And  to  the 
Sadducees  and  Pharisees  who  accosted  him  under  pre- 
text of  desiring  instruction  he  cried,  spurning  their 
duplicity,  "  O  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned 
you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  "  4 

This  ardent  and  inspired  language  bore  no  doubtful 
signification.  The  unfruitful  tree  was  egotism,  deceit, 
cupidity ;  the  axe  already  laid  to  the  root  of  the  worth- 
less tree  was  the  work  of  regeneration  and  justice, 
proclaimed  to  be  imminent.  Most  men  thought  that 
it  was  this  pilgrim  himself — the  Anointed  One  or  the 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          13 

Messiah — who  should  complete  the  purifying  work,  but 
to  them  he  declared  in  order  to  dispel  their  illusion: — 
"  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness 
6  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  His  paths 
straight — there  cometh  One  mightier  than  I  after  me, 
the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  stoop 
down  and  unloose.'  "  5 

The  pilgrim  is  therefore  a  precursor.  He  knows  that 
men  are  not  yet  at  all  prepared  for  the  mission  that 
is  coming  after  him,  and  calls  them  to  repentance,  and 
demands  a  searching  purification  of  souls  symbolised 
by  the  exterior  laving  of  baptism.  His  cry  is  one  of 
innovation,  it  is  the  cry  of  an  idea  become  a  need — of 
a  conception  proceeding  from  sentiment,  of  an  imminent 
necessity  which  will  not  be  gainsayed  and  penetrates 
to  the  desert.  When  this  cry  comes  from  the  desert 
of  Judaea,  the  necessity  is  imperious,  the  man  pre- 
destined to  incarnate  it  is  present,  He  is  on  the  banks 
of  the  Jordan  and  desires  immersion  in  its  waters  under 
the  creed  of  the  Baptist.  He  represents  the  feeling  of 
necessity  coming  from  the  depths,  from  the  desert ;  He, 
become  incarnate,  takes  up  His  mission  from  the  hands 
of  the  Baptist  by  the  grace  of  baptism  and  not  in 
the  way  of  improvisation.  The  Messiah  is  in  the 
desert,  the  Messiah  shall  render  it  cultivated,  popular, 
victorious.6 

What  difference  of  life  and  language  exists  in  fact 
between  the  precursor  and  Him  whom  he  preceded! 
The  former  is  a  rude,  strong  anchorite,  and  if  not  be- 
longing, as  some  have  conjectured,  to  the  Essenes,  is 
at  least  Nazarene,  and  thus  bound  by  vow  to  solitude 
and  abstinence.7  Even  in  the  midst  of  multitudes  of 
hearers,  and  of  those  who  had  received  baptism,  he 
always  remained  a  solitary.  His  voice  shakes  the 
soul  and  makes  it  tremble:  it  is  the  voice  of  a  censor, 


14          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

not  of  a  consoler,  and  for  his  austerity  of  censorship 
alone  he  is  destined  to  lose  his1  head.  Jesus,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  of  gentle  nature,  serene  and  sociable. 
He  shuns  the  solitude  and  stillness  of  the  desert,  defies 
the  powerful  and  the  hostile,  braves  sectaries  and  priests, 
has  the  sinner  for  His  friend,  is  merciful  to  the  adul- 
teress and  eats  with  publicans.  His  words  are  suave, 
insinuating,  tranquillising,  His  call  to  the  kingdom  of 
God,  which  epitomises  all  His  mission,  is  likened  by 
Him  to  a  genial  banquet,  and  he  who  follows  it  takes 
part  as  in  a  wedding  procession.  His  thoughts  and 
His  figures  of  speech  are  most  frequently  of  festivity, 
of  confidence;  His  yoke — He  tells  us — is  easy.  He 
also  calls  men  to  repentance,  but  the  penitence  which 
He  enjoins  is  not  the  leathern  girdle,  nor  the  solitude, 
nor  the  fasting  of  the  desert ;  it  is  contrition  and  faith. 
The  prodigal  son  obtains  more  grace  from  his  Father 
than  the  more  righteous  brother,  and  while  the  censor 
of  the  desert  with  just  but  austere  rigour  rebukes 
Herod  Antipater,  who  lives  in  concubinage,  Jesus  turns 
to  the  adulteress  with  gracious  words  of  defence  and 
pardon.  "  They  are  two  figures,"  very  justly  observes 
one  of  our  best  authors,  "  who  move  in  the  same 
religious  orbit,  but  in  contrary  directions.  They  are 
indeed  so  dissimilar  that  this  diversity  should  alone 
suffice  to  condemn  the  hypothesis,  maintained  by  a  re- 
cent German  critic  and  based  upon  the  opinion  of  some 
contemporaries  of  the  two  personages,  that  Jesus  was 
only  a  second  name  of  the  Baptist  who  was  believed  to 
have  risen  from  the  dead."  8 

The  voice  of  the  desert  brought  hearers  from  every 
part  of  Syria,  and  among  them  the  Nazarene,  Jesus, 
who  had  just  attained  His  thirtieth  year.  Before  this 
date  little  is  known  of  His  youth,  since  the  Gospel 
record  of  His  life  commences  about  that  time.9  In 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          15 

any  case  it  is  only  now  that  Jesus  enters  upon 
His  public  life.10  It  is  not  certain  how  long  it  lasted 
in  view  of  the  hitherto  irreconcilable  doubts  and  con- 
tradictions connected  with  the  chronology  of  the  whole 
life.  According,  however,  to  the  Synoptics,  the  public 
portion  of  the  life  was  of  the  duration  of  one  year 
passed  in  Galilee,  while,  according  to  the  fourth  Evan- 
gelist, it  extended  over  three  years,  passed  in  Judasa, 
excepting  the  time  during  which  Jesus  was  compelled 
to  abandon  His  public  teaching.11  Irenaeus,  who  lived 
in  the  second  century,  affirms  that  the  public  life  of  Jesus 
lasted  for  ten  years,  and  that  he  learned  from  disciples 
of  the  Evangelist  S.  John  that  the  life  of  Jesus  on 
earth  exceeded  forty  years.12  The  year  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus  is  not  known  with  certainty,  but  it  incontest- 
ably  occurred  in  Palestine  under  the  Empire  of  Augus- 
tus Caesar,  about  the  Roman  year  752 — that  is  to  say, 
about  two  years  before  the  Christian  era,  which  is, 
however,  commonly  supposed  to  have  commenced  with 
the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  and  was  therefore  named  after 
Him.13  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem  in  Judaea,14  but 
His  family  were  of  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  and  He  was 
therefore  commonly  called  the  Nazarene.15  Joseph, 
His  father,  was  a  poor  artisan  and  worked  as  a  car- 
penter. Mary,  His  mother,  was  a  young  woman  of  the 
Syrian  type,  full  of  grace  and  charm.16  Nothing 
more  can  be  affirmed  with  certainty  regarding  the  civil 
status  of  Jesus  if  we  regard  only  natural  and  not 
dogmatic  data,  for  which  there  is  no  place  in  the  present 
historical  work.  Only  those  who  have  set  themselves 
to  run  counter  to  every  Messianic  tradition  could  main- 
tain that  Joseph  and  Mary  were  legally  married, 
because  otherwise  their  offspring  could  not,  as  illegiti- 
mate, have  remained  seated  before  the  High  Council  on 
his  trial,17  as  if  it  were  not  the  fact  that  neither  the 


16          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Mosaic  nor  the  Roman  law  was  superficially  observed 
in  the  political  homicide  of  Golgotha  and  that  the  pro- 
cedure was  of  the  most  irregular  and  tumultuous  kind. 
This,  in  fact  will  be  the  principal  argument  of  these 
pages.  The  incidents  narrated  in  the  Gospels  show  that 
the  child  Jesus  was  precocious  in  manifesting  His  in- 
clinations, so  that  when  at  the  age  of  twelve  He  went 
with  His  parents  for  his  first  Easter  to  Jerusalem,  He 
took  great  interest  in  discussions  with  the  rabbis  and 
scribes.18  While  still  adolescent  He  followed  the  pater- 
nal trade  at  Nazareth  10  and  learned  to  read  and  write 
the  language  of  His  father,  which  was  a  Syriac  dialect 
mixed  with  Hebrew  such  as  was  then  spoken  in  Pales- 
tine.20 It  is  'a  gratuitous  and  unproven  assertion  that 
His  childhood  was  confided  to  the  care  of  the  Essenes.21 
In  Nazareth,  whence  every  year  He  made  the  Easter 
journey  to  Jerusalem,22  the  youth  of  Jesus  passed  in 
obscurity  with  His  mother,  who  treasured  in  her  heart 
the  wisdom  and  grace  by  which  her  only  Son  23  was  so 
distinguished  among  the  youth  of  the  place.24  About 
this  time  the  father  died,25  and  Jesus  in  the  thirtieth 
year  of  His  life  went  forth  to  meet  the  pilgrim  of  the 
desert.  This  man  was  John,  surnamed  the  Baptist, 
from  his  custom  of  baptising  all  who  desired  to  receive 
a  visible  sign  of  his  words,  and  whom  he  immersed  in 
the  waters  of  the  Jordan  in  sign  of  penitence  and  puri- 
fication.26 Jesus  also  received  baptism,  and  under  the 
influence  of  this  meeting  He  entered  securely  and  mar- 
vellously upon  His  mission.  His  baptiser  was  His  pre- 
cursor, but  the  baptised  Jesus  commenced  where  the 
Baptist  finished  and  was  ready  to  expound  a  teaching 
which  after  nineteen  hundred  years  may  still  find  adver- 
saries but  no  emulators. 

John  laid  the  axe  to  the  root  of  the  tree;  Jesus  will 
fell  it. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          17 


NOTES 

1  S.  Luke  iii.  1.    The  Evangelist  fixes  the  date  at  which  the 
mission  of  S.  John  the  Baptist  began:   "Anno  autem  quinto- 
decimo    imperii    Tiberii     Csesaris,    procurante     Pontio    Pilato 
Judseam,"  and  adds  "  ipse  Jesus  erat  incipiens  quasi  annorum 
triginta"  (Ivi).     Josephus,  Antiq.  xviu.  vii.  2.     For  the  heterodox 
criticism  regarding  John  the  Baptist,  v.  Strauss,  Vie  de  Jesus, 
ou  examen  critique  de  son  histoire,  trad,  by  E.  Littre,  Paris,  De 
Laudrage,  1839,  torn  i.  ch.  i.  par.  44. 

2  S.  Matthew  iii.  1,  4;  S.  Mark  i.  4,  6. 
3S.  Luke  iii.  9,  11;   S.  Matthew  iii.  10. 

4  S.  Luke  iii.  7;  S.  Matthew  iii.  7. 

5  S.  Matthew  iii.  3,  11;  S.  Mark  i.  3,  7;  S.  Luke  iii.  4,  16;  S. 
John  i.  23,  26,  27;  Acts  i.  5,  xi.  16,  xix.  4.     Cf.  Isaiah  xl.  3. 

6  Cf.  Bovio,  Corso  di  scienza  del  diritto,  Napoli,  Jovene,  1877, 
Lez.  vi. 

7  Epifanio,  Adv.  hcer.  xxx.  13. 

8  Chiappelli,  Nuove  pag.  sul  Crist,  ant.  pp.  56, 57.    The  German 
author  is  Sack,  Die  AUjiidische  Religion,  Berlin,  1889,  p.  429. 
For  the  popular  Jewish  opinion,  v.  S.  Matthew  xiv.  2,  S.  Mark  vi. 
14,  S.  Luke  ix.  8. 

9  S.  Mark  (i,  1,  3,  9)  begins  his  Gospel  direct  from  this  epoch. 

10  S.  Luke  iii.  1:    v.  s.  note  1.     If,  as  this  Evangelist  attests, 
Jesus  had  entered  his  thirtieth  year  when  He  heard  the  voice 
from  the  desert,  it  is  clear  that  before  this  time  Jesus  had  not 
come  before  the  people. 

11  S.  John  iv.  1,  3,  43,  vii.  1. 

12  Adversus  hcereses. 

13  The  calculation  by  which  the  birth  of  Jesus  coincides  with 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  was  made  in  the  sixth  century 
by  Dionysius  Exiguus.     According  to  this  reckoning,  by  which 
we  all  count  the  days  of  our  life,  the  birth  of  Jesus  and  the  begin- 
ning of  our  era  should  fall  in  the  year  753  of  Rome,  corresponding 
to  the  year  IV.  of  the  CICIV.  Olympiad  and  to  the  year  4714 
of  the  Julian  period.     But  this  calculation  is  by  common  accord 
found  to  be  incorrect.     Cf.  Caspari,  Introduzione    cronologico 


18          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

geografica  alia  vita  di  G.  C.  (Hamburg,  1869).  In  this  matter 
may  also  be  consulted  Bonghi's  easy  and  lucid  exposition,  Vita 
di  Gesu,  appendix  iii.  The  chronology  of  Caspari  is  adopted 
here.  The  only  certain  chronological  date  in  the  life  of  Jesus  is 
its  final  limit,  which  can  be  fixed  as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  year 
36  of  Christ,  since  in  the  year  37  Pilate  was  recalled  by  Tiberius 
a  little  before  the  death  of  the  latter.  And  as  Tiberius  died  in 
March  and  Pilate  on  his  return  found  him  already  dead,  the 
recall  must  therefore  have  been  notified  before  March  of  the  year 
37,  and  hence  the  last  Easter  which  Pilate  passed  in  Jerusalem, 
and  during  which  the  Crucifixion  could  have  occurred,  must  have 
been  that  of  the  year  36.  (For  the  recall  of  Pilate,  cf .  Josephus, 
Antiq.  xvm.  4,  and  Tacitus,  Annal.  vi.  31,  32). 

14  S.  John  vii.  42;  S.  Matthew  ii.  1,  5,  8,  16;  S.  Luke  ii.  4,  7, 15. 

15  S.  John  i.  45,  46,  viii.  41;  S.  Matthew  ii.  23,  xiii.  54;  S.  Mark 
vi.  1.    The  reason  why  the  mother  of  Jesus  went  from  Nazareth 
to  Bethlehem  where  the  child  was  born  is  not  clear,  but  that  does 
not  mean  that  it  is  a  statement  to  be  rejected  with  the  sole  object 
of  inventing  another.     An  invention  of  this  sort,  for  it  was  never 
proved,  was  the  story  that  contrary  to  the  Messianic  tradition, 
Jesus  was  Jborn  at  Nazareth  and  not  at  Bethlehem.     It  was  not 
understood  why  the  mother  of  Jesus  should  have  made  the  journey 
to  Bethlehem,  and  to  explain  this  it  has  been  alleged,  on  the  basis 
of  a  slight  indication  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  that  in  those  days 
an  edict  went  forth  from  Augustus  Csesar  ordering  a  census  of  all 
the  people,  according  to  which  every  subject  of  Rome,  including 
those  of  the  province  of  Judsea,  should  report  at  the  nearest  town 
of  their  district,  for  which  reason  Joseph,  the  father  of  Jesus, 
had  to  repair  to  Bethlehem.     But  even  if  this  were  the  manner 
of  obeying  the  decree  of  Augustus,  it  is  also  true  that  the  census 
in  question  was   carried    out    by  Publius  Sulpicius  Quirinus, 
the  Imperial  Prefect  in  Syria,  about  ten  years  after  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  since  it  was  only  at  that  time,  and  not  before,  that  Sulpicius 
Quirinus  succeeded  Quintilius  in  the  Syrian  Prefecture  (Orelli, 
Inscr.  lat.;   Henzen,  Supplement  to  Orelli).     But  if  the  reason 
accepted  in  explanation  of  the  circumstance  of  the  birth  of  Jesus 
at  Bethlehem.may  not  be  good  in  itself,  still  less  satisfactory  is 
the  reason  so  lightly  alleged  by  Renan  (Vie  de  Jesus,  ch.  ii.), 
as  proving  that  Jesus  must  have  been  born  at  Nazareth.    Renan 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS          19 

only  refers  to  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelist  who  more  often 
speaks  of  Jesus  as  of  Nazareth  (S.  John  i.  45,  46,  vii.  41,  42), 
but  he  does  not  perceive  that  the  same  Evangelist  also  speaks  of 
Bethlehem  as  the  city  whence  came  the  Messiah  (S.  John  vii. 
42),  and  for  him  the  Messiah  was  Jesus  (S.  John  i.  14, 17,  passim). 

16  S.  Matthew  xiii.  55;  S.  John  vi.  42.  The  Latin  word  faber 
(corresponding  to  the  Greek  TCKTCOV)  signifies  any  mechanical 
work,  while  in  the  designation  of  particular  kinds  of  work  it 
requires  a  specific  adjective.  Thus,  for  example,  faber  ferra- 
rius,  blacksmith,  faber  aurarius,  goldsmith,  faber  lignarius, 
carpenter  (Cicero,  Bruto,  cap.  Ixxiii.).  Moreover,  it  was  a 
general  custom  with  the  Hebrews  as  with  other  peoples  that  men 
following  intellectual  pursuits  should  learn  some  trade.  S.  Paul, 
for  example,  was  a  tentmaker,  scenofactoria  ars  (Ada  Apost. 
xviii.  3).  According  to  a  pious  tradition,  it  is  to  a  gift  from  Mary 
that  the  women  of  Nazareth  owe  the  beauty  for  which  they  are  re- 
nowned in  our  own  day.  At  eventide,  when  the  young  girls,  with 
pitchers  poised  on  their  heads,  go  to  draw  water  from  the  springs 
which  run  flashing  among  the  rocks,  the  foreign  wayfarer  is 
struck  by  the  regularity  and  grace  of  their  features,  the  ineffable 
sweetness  of  their  smile  and  the  glance  which  they  cast  upon  him 
from  their  black  eyes  (Mistrali,  Vita  di  Gesu  by  Renan,  cap.  ii.). 
Renan  also  noticed  this  in  his  visit  to  Nazareth: — 

"The  fountain  around  which  gathered  in  past  times  the  gaiety 
and  life  of  the  little  town  is  now  destroyed,  and  only  turbid  water 
is  to  be  got  from  its  broken  conduits.  The  women  who  congre- 
gate there  preserve  to  a  surprising  extent  the  beauty  already 
remarked  in  the  sixth  century  (reference  is  here  made  to  An- 
toninus Martyr)  and  believed  to  be  a  gift  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
It  is  the  Syrian  type  in  all  its  grace,  and  full  of  sweetness.  Mary 
no  doubt  came  there  nearly  every  day  with  her  water-pitcher, 
taking  her  place  in  the  file  of  her  fellow  towns-women  who  have  not 
emerged  from  obscurity"  (Vie,  ch.  ii.). 

For  the  legends  concerning  Mary  reference  may  be  made  for 
example,  to  Fabricius,  Codices  apocryph.  novi  testam.,  in  which 
is  reprinted  the  Proto-Gospel  (primitive  form)  attributed  to  S. 
James.  Many  foolish  and  minute  details,  including  even  the 
alleged  visit  of  a  midwife  to  Mary  in  the  Grotto  at  Bethlehem, 
are  pure  fantasy  of  very  questionable  taste. 


20          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

17  Salvador,  Histoire  des  institutions  de  Moise   et  du  peuple 
hebreu,  torn.  iv.  par.  1,  liv.  4,  ch.  3  text,  and  note  84.     The  law 
to  which  Salvador  refers  must  be  this  passage  of  Deuteronomy: 
"Non  ingredietur  mamzer,  hoc  est,  de  scorto  natus,  in  ecclesiam 
Domini,   usque   ad   decimam   generationem"    (xxiii.    2).     But 
Salvador  himself  says:   "The  family  of  which  Jesus  formed  part 
was  not  a  fortunate  one.     Joseph,  his  putative  father,  knew  that 
his  wife  was  with  child  before  they  came  together.     If  he  had 
brought  her  before  the  tribunal,  Mary  in  the  ordinary  course 
would  have  been   condemned   under  Art.  23  of  chap.  xxii.  of 
Deuteronomy."    But  in  this  text  we  read :  "Si  puellam  virginem 
despondent  vir,  et  invenerit  earn  aliquis  in  civitate,  et  concubuerit 
cum  ea.     (Par.  24  follows)  Educes  utrumque  ad  portam  civitatis 
illius  et  lapidibus  obruentur."    Now  who,  in  the  case  of  Mary, 
concubuerit  cum  ea?    If  allusion  to  Joseph  is  intended,  the  text 
of  the  law  is  not  applicable.    How  then  can  Salvador  interpret 
this  text?    To  me  it  seems  only  possible  to  interpret  it  in  the 
sense  that  the  Hebrew  girl  (who  after  espousal  remained  for  some 
time  in  the  paternal  home)  was  punished  as  an  adulteress  if 
she  had  yielded  to  somebody  who  might  have  met  her  in  the  town, 
but  not  if  to  her  betrothed  husband  since  (adds  the  same  par. 
24)  vir  humiliavit  uxorem  proximi  sui.    Hence  lapidation  could 
not  be  the  lot  of  either  Mary  or  Joseph. 

It  would  have  been  hard  for  Joseph — a  putative  husband — to 
have  been  stoned  to  death!  Against  the  theory  of  a  real  and 
proper  marriage  reference  may  be  made  to  S.  Matthew  i.  18,  19, 
20;  S.  Luke  i.  27,  34,  35,  ii.  5;  S.  Augustine,  Contra  Julianum, 
lib.  v.  cap.  xii. 

18  S.  Luke  ii.  42  et  seq.    For  the  heterodox  criticism  on  this 
point,  v.  Strauss,  Vie,  sect.  i.  ch.  v.  par.  40. 

19  S.  Mark  vi.  3:    "Nonne  hie  est  faber,  filius  Mariae?"    This 
results  also  from  the  Storie  di  Sozomeno,  lib  vi.  c.  ii. 

20  S.  John  viii.  6,  8.    More  from  this  passage  than  any  other 
it  may  be  concluded  that  Jesus  had  learned  to  write.    The 
Evangelist,  referring  to  the  incident  of  the  pardon  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery,  attests  that  Jesus  wrote  upon  the  ground  with 
His  finger.     Cf.  Mishnah,  Shabbath.  i.  3.     For  the  language 
spoken  by  Jesus,  consult  Eusebius,  De  ritu  et  nom.  loc.  hebr.; 
Adv.  hcer.  xxix.  7-9;  xxx.  3;  S.  Jerome,  Dial.  adv.  pelag.  iii.  2. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  21 

21  Salvador,  Histoire  des  institutions  de  Moise   et   du  peuple 
hebreu,  torn.  i.  ch.  iii.  p.  270.     Salvador  affirms  it. 

22  S.  Luke  ii.  41.  Cf.    Exodus  xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  18;  Deuteronomy 
xvi.  2. 

23  Those  relations  who  would  appear  to  have  been,  and  are 
sometimes  called  by  the  Evangelists  themselves,  brothers  and 
sisters  of  Jesus  (Acts  i.  14;   S.  Luke  viii.  20;  S.  Matthew  xii.  47 
et  seq.\   S.  John  ii.  12,  vii,  3,  10;    S.  Mark  vi.  3).    They  were 
not  really  so,  since  they  are  mentioned  by  their  names  of  James, 
Simon,  Joseph,  and  Judah  as  sons  of  Mary,  sister  of  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  who  espoused  a  certain  Alpheus  or  Cleophas  and  had 
by  him  a  large  family  (Const.  Apost.  vii.  46;  Hist.  eccl.  iii.  32). 
Hence  the  supposed  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus  are  nothing 
but  cousins,  of  whom  he  was  the  elder  in  years,  and  for  that 
reason  was  called  the  firstborn  (S.  Matthew  i.  25;  S.  Luke  ii.  23). 
Moreover,  when  these  two  Evangelists  speak  of  Jesus  as  firstborn, 
they  do  not  wish  to  convey  that  He  had  brothers  and  sisters. 
S.  Matthew  (/.  c.)  says  that  Joseph  knew  not  Mary  until  after 
her  son  was  born,  and  by  this  the  Evangelist  does  not  wish  it 
to  be  supposed  that  Mary  before  the  birth  of  her  son  was  known 
by  another,  seeing   that  his  idea  is  essentially  a  dogmatic  one 
and  cannot  admit  contradiction  based  on  reasons  of  a  natural 
order!     In  like  manner  S.  Luke  (/.  c.)  mentions  the  firstborn 
in  connection  with  the  purification  of  Mary  after  having  spoken 
of  the  spiritual  conception  of  her  son  (i.  27-35),  a  statement  which 
would  be  in  open  opposition  to  the  attribution  of  other  children 
to  Mary.     Heterodox  criticism,  in  fact,  willingly  upholds  the 
contrary  thesis   (cf.  Strauss,  Vie,  ch.  iii.  par.  30,  and  Renan, 
Vie,  ch.  ii.) — a  thesis  which  in  my  poor  opinion  can  never  be 
confirmed  by  the  Gospels,  on  which  it  is  sought  to  be  founded, 
since  if  the  Evangelists,  according  to  all  heterodox  criticism, 
adapted  their  narratives  in  conformity  with  a  didactic  dogmatical 
and  theological  point  of  view  rather  than  with  a  biographical, 
historical,  and  naturalistic  one,  it  is  an  absurdity  and  a  contra- 
diction to  pretend  that  they  themselves  wished  to  testify  to  a 
primogeniture  in  Jesus,  whom  they  necessarily  regarded  as  the 
only  begotten  Son,  in  consonance  with  the  mystery  and  dogma 
of  the  incarnation  upheld  in  common  accord  by  them. 

24  S.  Luke  ii.  51 ;  S.  Matthew  ii.  23. 


22          THE  TRIAL1  OF  JESUS 

25  Concerning  the  death  of  Joseph,  more  may  be  deduced  from 
what  is  left  unsaid  than  from  what  is  said  by  the  Evangelists, 
who  say  no  more  about  it  at  this  point,  leading  us  thereby  to 
understand  that  Joseph  died  when  Jesus  had  reached  his  twelfth 
year.     Luke,  who  particularises  more  than  the  other  Evangelists 
concerning  the  childhood  of  the  Master,  mentions  the  generation 
of  Jesus  and  Joseph  in  chap.  ii. 

26  S.  Mark  i.  4;  S.  Matthew  iii.  1,  6,  13;  S.  Luke  iii.  3,  16,  21; 
S.  John  i.  6,  8,  20,  23,  26,  28.     Cf.  Witsii,  Exercitatio  de  Johanne 
Baptista  in  Miscell.  Sacra,  ii.  87. 

Baptism,  as  the  original  Greek  word  indicates,  signifies  ablution 
or  washing,  and  in  this  sense  the  Jews  designated  as  baptism 
certain  legal  purifications  which  were  practised  after  circum- 
cision. The  Hebraic  law  is  full  of  injunctions  in  regard  to 
lustrations  and  baptisms.  The  baptism  practised  by  S.  John 
the  Baptist  may  be  compared  to  a  bridge  leading  from  the  Jewish 
baptism  to  that  of  Jesus  (S.  Chrysostom,  Hebr.  cap.  x.). 


CHAPTER   III 

The  Doctrine  of  Jesus  from  the  Economic  Point  of  View — The 
Hebrew  Tenure  of  Property — Wealth  Incompatible  with  the 
Kingdom  of  God — The  Attacks  and  Parables  of  Jesus — The 
Conclusions  of  His  Doctrine — New  Definition  of  the  Meaning 
of  Life — Substitution  of  the  Christian  for  the  Pagan  Idea  of 
Society — Neither  Negation  nor  Distribution  of  Wealth,  but 
its  Administration  by  Owners  for  the  Benefit  of  All — Chris- 
tianity and  Socialism — The  Language  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church  and  the  Language  of  Jesus — The  Thoughts  and 
Language  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  state  of  opinion  and  of 
legislation  concerning  wealth — Jesus  does  not  violate  institu- 
tions and  laws,  but  raises  feelings  at  variance  with  them — 
The  Rich  come  to  hate  Him. 

THE  first  blow  of  the  axe  was  bound  to  be  directed 
against  wealth,  the  principal  cause  of  the  differences 
and  rancour  characterising  social  struggles;  wealth 
which  is  the  first  obstacle  to  the  reign  of  the  paternity  of 
God,  as  it  is  also  its  most  irreconcilable  negation,  since 
it  breaks  the  filial  relation  of  man  to  the  Father,  and 
the  fraternal  bond  between  men.  In  those  days  it  did 
not  happen  that  a  single  family  enjoyed  an  income  of 
£4,000  per  day — equivalent  to  the  earnings  of  fifty 
thousand  operatives  with  wages  at  one  shilling  and 
eight-pence  per  day — as  we  now  see  with  the  Astors, 
Rockefellers,  and  Goulds  of  tbe  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, nor  did  the  motive  force  at  the  disposal  of  the  na- 
tions exceed  that  of  fifty  million  horse-power,  and  usurp 
the  work  of  a  thousand  millions  of  men;  nor  did  com- 
merce, formed  and  transformed  in  infinite  combinations, 

23 


24          THE   TRIAL  OF   JESUS 

engender  a  most  novel  feudalism  that  enabled  great 
establishments  like  the  Louvre,  the  Printemps,  and  the 
Bon  Marche  to  raze  at  their  pleasure  thousands  of 
humble  homes  in  a  few  days;  nor  finally  did  the  state 
admit  the  poor  to  the  same  civil  and  political  rights  as 
the  rich — and  thus,  while  admitting  and  proclaiming 
the  equality  of  political  conditions,  render  more  acute 
and  more  irritating  the  inequality  existing  between 
economic  conditions.  Nevertheless  the  intolerable  dis- 
proportion between  superfluity  and  want  existing  among 
classes  of  one  and  the  same  people  even  then  made  itself 
felt. 

The  system  of  the  tenure  of  property  in  force  with 
the  Hebrews  is  insufficiently  known,  but  it  is  certain  that 
the  acquisition  of  property  underwent  a  very  rapid  evo- 
lution. Genesis  already  mentions  family  property,1  but 
it  is  known  that  this  system  was  of  very  brief  duration, 
and  was  replaced  by  the  individual  system  of  ownership. 
It  is  known  also  that  the  land  of  Canaan,  conquered 
by  violence,  was  divided  up  in  such  proportions  that 
some  noble  families  received  as  much  as  whole  towns.2 
Hence  John  the  Baptist's  simile  of  the  unfruitful  tree 
that  should  be  cast  into  the  fire 3  was  in  no  way  an 
unjust  one. 

Jesus,  in  taking  up  the  work  of  his  precursor,  dwells 
persistently  upon  wealth  being  the  first  condition  of  in- 
compatibility with  His  Father's  kingdom,  and  on  this 
head  admits  neither  truce  nor  compromise.  "  That  ye 
may  be,"  He  says,  "  the  children  of  your  Father  which 
is  in  heaven,  for  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil 
and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust."  4  And  leaving  metaphor,  He  cries  yet  louder: 
"  But  woe  unto  you  that  are  rich !  for  ye  have  received 
your  consolation.  Woe  unto  you  that  are  full !  for  ye 
shall  hunger.  Woe  unto  you  that  laugh  now!  for 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          25 

ye  shall  mourn  and  weep."  5  And  after  the  cry — veh 
divitibus! — which  He  raised  in  His  celebrated  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,6  the  Master  of  Nazareth  declared :  "  It 
is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle, 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  7 
And  the  Evangelist  records  only  one  case  in  which  a  rich 
man  is  saved,  the  case  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  perhaps 
to  prove  that  God's  omnipotence  may  enable  a  camel  to 
pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle ! 

The  parable  of  the  rich  man  who  is  erroneously  stig- 
matised as  bad,  exemplifies  the  same  inexorable  principle ; 
the  poor  man  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham;  the  rich  man, 
solely  for  being  rich,  in  Gehenna.8  In  the  other  par- 
able of  the  unfaithful  steward  the  Master  praises  the 
maai  who  makes  friends  for  himself  among  the  poor  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  administrative  trust  confided  to 
him.9  On  another  occasion,  replying  to  a  young  and 
wealthy  proprietor  who  asks  what  he  shall  do  to  inherit 
eternal  life,  He  says,  "  Go  thy  way,  sell  whatsoever  thou 
hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure 
in  heaven,  and  come,  take  up  the  cross,  and  follow 
Me." 10  And  finally,  when  praying  to  the  Father, 
"  Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  Thy  Name  whom  Thou 
hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  also 
are."  n  A  too  liberal  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  represents  Him  in  the  Vulgate  text  as  having  said, 
"  Quod  superest  date  eleemosynam"  12  But  this  ren- 
dering is  an  arbitrary  one.  The  Greek  words  ra 
evovra  were  badly  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  in  the  Latin 
quod  superest,  which  would  certainly  signify  "  what  ye 
have  over  and  above,"  while  in  their  original  form  the 
words  simply  mean  "  such  things  as  ye  have,  and  not 
the  things  ye  have  in  superfluity."  The  error,  too  long 
allowed  to  subsist,  was  pointed  out  at  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century  by  Catholic  translators  themselves 


26          THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

when  greater  attention  began  to  be  paid  to  the  Greek 
text  of  the  Gospels,  which  in  the  case  of  S.  Luke  is  the 
original  text.15  Jesus,  therefore,  did  not  teach  that  to 
the  poor  should  be  given  the  superfluity  of  the  rich,  but 
all  that  the  poor  needed. 

Hence  the  antithetical  terms  of  His  doctrine.  Riches 
had  to  be  renounced  or  the  kingdom  of  God  must  be 
renounced:  man  must  either  serve  the  cause  of  egotisti- 
cal society  or  embrace  that  of  the  Gospel.  To  serve 
two  opposing  causes  would  be  the  same  as  serving  two 
masters — and  Jesus  declares,  "  No  man  can  serve  two 
masters,  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the 
other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the 
other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon."  14  Hence 
the  incontrovertible  conclusion  that  this  doctrine  could 
not  have  been,  and  never  can  be,  intended  as  embodying 
rules  of  conduct  and  revelations  to  be  unchangeably  ac- 
cepted. It  was,  and  is,  a  new  explanation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  life,  a  fundamental  definition  of  human  conduct, 
an  absolute  substitution  of  the  Christian  idea  for  the 
Pagan  idea  of  society.  Otherwise  Christianity  would 
have  been  then,  and  to-day  more  so  than  ever,  a  worship 
and  not  a  faith,  an  institution  and  not  a  whole  and  co- 
herent conviction.  In  fact,  its  decadence  dates  from 
Constantine,  when  Pope  Sylvester  induced  that  monarch 
to  profess  the  religion  of  Christ  without  requiring  him 
to  renounce  the  principles  and  customs  of  Paganism. 
In  this  the  most  Christian  of  the  poets  had  reason  to 
lament  di  quanta  mal  fu  matre,  not  the  conversion  of 
the  Roman  Emperor,  but  quella  dote  by  which  the  two 
Powers  thenceforward  united  their  efforts  and  procured 
the  development  of  the  material  greatness  of  two  insti- 
tutions instead  of  one ! 15 

Nevertheless,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  Jesus  advo- 
cated— through  the  absolute  negation  of  wealth — a  uni- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          27 

versal  impoverishment  in  order  to  make  wretchedness  the 
terrestrial  system  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  nor  did  Jesus 
propound  a  social  programme  aiming  at  succouring 
poverty  and  overcoming  the  inequality  which  is  its  step- 
mother, by  acquiring  and  regulating  wealth.  Both 
these  often-repeated  assertions  are  false. 

To  Jesus,  evil  is  evil,  need  is  need,  and  instead  of  tol- 
erating or  encouraging  them,  His  aim  is  to  oppose  and 
destroy  them.  Endurance  and  not  resistance  to  evil  is 
taught  by  Him  to  its  victims,  who  in  this  respect  are 
the  poor;  but  to  the  workers  of  iniquity,  who,  in  the 
same  purview,  are  the  rich,  He  allows  neither  truce  nor 
evasion,  and  enjoins  cessation  from  sin  as  the  sole  way 
of  repentance.  All  His  work  in  this  regard  also  has 
been  one  of  salvation,  one  of  struggle  against  evil. 
"  Thus  it  might  be  said,"  observes  the  learned  historian 
of  Dogma,  "  that  Jesus  may  have  exaggerated  the  de- 
pressing effect  of  poverty  and  misery  and  made  too 
great  account  of  them,  while  attributing  at  the  same 
time  undue  value  to  compassion  and  mercy — the  forces 
that  should  counteract  those  evils."  But  to  main- 
tain this  would  be  an  error,  because  he  knows  that  a 
power  exists  which  for  him  is  worse  than  wretchedness 
and  need,  and  this  is  sin ;  he  knows  there  is  a  redeeming 
power  greater  than  pity,  and  that  is  forgiveness.16 

Now  no  danger  and  no  occasion  of  sin  can  appear 
greater  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  than  riches,  which  obtain 
the  mastery  over  men  and  make  them  tyrants  of  them- 
selves and  others,  subject  them  to  the  vulgar  strivings 
and  ease-loving  propensities  of  this  life  and  constantly 
tend  to  place  them  in  incompatability  with  the  paternal 
idea  of  God.  Money  becomes  consolidated  violence, 
egoism  a  mute  tyranny.  And  against  this  condition  of 
sin,  Jesus  set  in  motion  a  corrective  force,  which  is  altru- 
ism, solidarity,  pity ;  but  where  this  may  not  attain  its 


28          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

object  or  prove  inadequate,  he  indicates  another  force 
much  more  efficacious  and  of  a  c(uite  opposite  character, 
which  is  the  power  of  forgiveness.  This  force,  in  the 
practical  outcome  of  life,  goes  beyond  the  other — it  even 
takes  its  place  or  preserves  it,  since  men  are  much  more 
disposed  to  obtain  forgiveness  when  they  find  who  it  is 
that  pardons,  than  not  to  get  themselves  praised. 
Between  two  classes,  one  wealthy,  the  other  disinherited, 
the  former  will  be  so  much  less  disposed  to  acts  of  altru- 
ism, while  the  latter  will  be  to  a  greater  degree  inclined 
to  an  attitude  of  resignation  and  forgiveness.  Failing 
an  immanent  pressure  on  the  part  of  the  poor,  and  also 
in  view  of  their  resignation,  the  rich  will  always  retain 
their  wealth,  and  if  undisturbed,  may  even  augment  it. 
And  hence  the  supposed  impoverishment  will  be  much  less 
provoked  by  the  doctrine  of  toleration  and  forgiveness 
than  by  the  system  of  struggle  and  conquest  of  classes. 
Moreover,  Jesus  applies  His  ideas  to  the  world  such  as 
it  is,  in  its  laws  and  tendencies.  To  apply  them  He 
neither  presupposes  nor  looks  for  the  renovation  and 
perfection  of  humanity,  always  and  above  all  things 
egoistic,  exception  being  made  of  the  heavenly  rewards 
promised  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  those  who 
hunger  and  thirst  now,  and  the  inexorable  penalties 
pronounced  against  those  who  are  satiated. 

If,  then,  we  adopt  the  mere  abstract  and  polemical 
hypothesis  that  the  good  seed  sown  by  Jesus  may  bear 
prompt  and  complete  fruit,  yet  even  then  wealth  will  not 
be  abolished,  although  its  abuse  will  be  changed  into  a 
spontaneous  and  perfectly  equal  and  fraternal  use.  The 
same  sentiments  of  altruism,  of  solidarity,  and  of 
mercy  will  induce  the  holders  of  wealth  to  distribute  it 
and  not  to  annihilate  it,  making  the  largest  and  best 
proportioned  use  not  of  quod  superest,  but  of  ea  quce 
adsunt.  It  may  be  said  that  the  economic  programme 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          29 

of  Jesus  never  aimed  at  annihilating  wealth 17  but  prop- 
erty, and  this,  not  in  regard  to  the  power  conferred  by 
its  possession,  but  to  the  fact  of  its  unlimited  enjoy- 
ment. 

In  the  Christian  idea  individual  property  could  not  and 
should  not  be  the  jus  utendi  et  abutendi  of  the  Pagan 
conception;  but  should  nevertheless  be  withdrawn  from 
the  occasional  and  legitimate  possession  of  its  holders. 
The  latter  should  admit  in  principle  and  in  fact  that  the 
property  which  they  possess  is  the  indivisible  patrimony 
of  the  Father,  who  cannot  have  made  distinctions  or 
preferences  among  the  brethren  of  the  universal  human 
family,  that  property  does  not  belong  less  to  others  than 
to  themselves,  and  that  they  should  only  possess  it  for 
the  sole  and  unalterable  object  of  administering  it  no 
longer  for  their  own  advantage,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
their  neighbours.18  And  although  this  may  be  a  jurid- 
ical paradox,  it  is  not  a  moral  absurdity,  since  it  is 
wholly  founded  upon  a  calculation  of  the  perfectibility 
of  the  individual  by  virtue  of  a  persuasive  ethical  law, 
rather  than  on  the  perfection  of  the  State  by  force  of  a 
coercive  law  such  as  might  be  expected  from  the  col- 
lectivist  economic  schools. 

Thus  the  individual  in  the  individualistic  system  in- 
separable from  Christianity,  exercises  a  plainly  socialist 
function  in  place  of  the  State,  which  in  the  juridical 
system  of  collectivity  should  regulate  the  socialisation  of 
land  and  the  employment  of  the  instruments  of  wealth. 
But  the  socialism  inaugurated  by  the  Master  of  Naza- 
reth is  one  that  admits  of  no  comparison.  It  is  not 
founded  upon  the  premiss  of  antagonistic  interests,  but 
on  the  consciousness  of  a  spiritual  unity,  and  does  not 
subject  the  solidarity  of  men  and  the  community  of 
things  to  the  pressing  and  triumphant  right  of  the  dis- 
inherited, who  remain  always  in  the  same  attitude  of  res- 


30          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ignation,  and  in  the  same  expectancy  of  pardon.  This 
solidarity  and  this  communism  are  recommended  by  the 
Master  to  the  infinite  appreciation  of  the  soul  in  its  place 
amid  the  eternal  harmonies  of  justice.19  Everybody 
will  understand  that  it  would  be  an  unjust  and  fallacious 
artifice  to  compose  a  programme  of  juridical  socialism, 
be  it  called  Catholic  or  Christian,  professional  or  State- 
directed,  whether  founded  or  not  upon  the  abolition  of 
individual  property,  or  whether  the  cause  be  mixed  or 
composite  rather  than  simple  and  indivisible,  wheref rom 
it  is  possible  to  distinguish  what  is  superfluous  and  vain. 
And  yet  it  has  been  affirmed  that  whoever  rejects  mod- 
ern socialism  rejects  ancient  Christianity.20 

In  reality,  however,  socialism  and  Christianity  form  a 
double  name  containing  similar  premises  but  wholly 
diverse  conclusions.  The  premiss  of  a  universal  equal- 
ity is  similar  and  not  identical,  but  the  .title  and  direc- 
tion given  to  its  realisation  are  absolutely  different. 
What  defines  socialism  is  the  recognition  and  exercise  of 
an  absolute  and  equal  right  of  all  men  to  the  enjoyment 
of  social  well-being  and  the  government  of  society. 
Now  this  is  an  altogether  modern  democratic  idea  which 
differs  not  only  from  the  Christian,  but  also  from  the 
Pagan  idea  of  communism,  which  shows  itself  in  the  re- 
motest phases  of  ^society.21 

The  philosophers^  of  antiquity  who  propounded  com- 
munistic theories  intended  them  to  form  an  aristocratic 
ideal,  and  rejected  the  idea  of  any  right  on  the  part  of 
the  masses  to  govern  the  State.  Plato  and  Xenophon, 
who  fostered  these  theories,  were  two  excellent  aristo- 
crats.22 Free  Sparta,  which  lotig  preserved  institutions 
most  analogous  to  communism,  was  the  most  aristocratic 
republic  of  Greece.  Even  the  much-envied  Italian 
municipalities,  observes  a  French  writer  on  Florentine 
history,  were  not  really  democratic.23  In  Florence, 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          31 

Venice,  Bologna,  and  Milan  political  power  resided  in 
the  city:  the  immense  rural  districts  surrounding  them 
being  reduced  to  the  strictest  obedience,  and  in  no  way 
participating  in  the  government  of  the  State.  The 
peasant  in  many  of  the  freest  States  of  mediaeval  Italy 
not  only  enjoyed  no  political,  but  often  did  not  even 
possess  civil  rights. 

Socialism  is  a  product  of  modern  democracy,  and  of 
those  same  liberal  doctrines  and  reforms  with  which  it 
appears  to  be  in  open  opposition.  A  German  socialist 
Deputy  was  right  in  saying  at  a  sitting  of  the  Reichstag 
to  his  colleagues  of  the  Liberal  party :  "  We  are  your 
pupils,  we  have  done  nothing  but  popularise  your  doc- 
trines, and  carry  them  to  their  final  consequences  for  the 
advantage  of  the  people."  24  With  universal  suffrage 
now  introduced  in  almost  all  States,  Liberals  have  said 
to  the  masses :  "  Rise,  be  the  arbiters  of  the  State." 
And  thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  equality  of  civil 
and  political  rights  is  the  natural  source  of  economic 
equality  and  the  historic  cause  of  socialism. 

Without  doubt  the  moral  idea  of  Christ  fertilised  the 
exclusively  economic  germs  by  its  long  and  fruitful 
work  of  education,  anterior  to  the  definition  of  any 
principles  or  to  any  conquests  of  liberalism.  And  from 
this  point  of  view  it  has  been  rightly  said  that  socialism 
is  a  phenomenon  reflected  from  Christian  countries.25 
And  if  there  is  truth  in  the  admission  also  made  by 
a  positive  economist  that  the  intelligence  of  social 
science  proceeds  from  the  heart  more  than  from  the 
mind,26  it  must  be  saic^  that  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  which 
for  the  last  nineteen  hundred  years  has  spoken  to  hearts 
capable  of  generosity  and  compassion  the  great  truths 
of  fraternity  and  love,  while  rebuking  social  differences 
and  injustices,  must  have  weighed  as  a  powerful  in- 
fluence in  the  deepest  and  noblest  moral  reasons  of  the 


32          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

new  economic  doctrine,  which  has  in  part  humanised  the 
divine  doctrine. 

But  the  difference  between  the  two  doctrines  is  pre- 
cisely that  which  intervenes  between  the  two  terms  of 
the  human  and  divine,  between  an  affair  of  this  world 
and  an  order  of  supernatural  facts ;  the  uncertain  pos- 
session of  property  and  economic  inequality  are  not, 
according  to  the  Master  of  Nazareth,  injustices  in  the 
modern  sense  nor  an  injuria  in  the  Roman  acceptation 
of  the  term,  but  a  contradiction  and  a  fault  of  the  soul 
destined  for  perfection.  The  equality  which  should  be 
substituted  for  this  sinful  condition  should  be  a  matter 
of  fact  not  of  right,  to  be  attained  and  secured  by  the 
simple  virtue  of  persuasion  and  by  the  sole  sanction  of 
faith — a  faith  which  rests  upon  the  rewards  and  punish- 
ments of  a  justice  beyond  this  world. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  foundation  of  the  socialist 
programme,  individual  property  and  economic  inequal- 
ity are  a  spoliation  and  an  injustice  for  which  should  be 
substituted  a  condition  of  right  and  not  of  fact,  con- 
stitutionally different,  founded  upon  the  socialisation  of 
all  the  means  of  wealth  and  disciplined  by  the  will  and 
coercive  sanction  of  the  State  government.27  Such  is 
the  socialist  State  of  modern  collectivism,  which  is  op- 
posed to  and  does  not  approach  the  socialist  individual- 
ism of  original  Christianity. 

By  this  profound  individualism,  and  this  negation  of 
every  rule  and  every  constitution  of  the  State,  the  City 
of  God  prepared  by  Jesus  would  be  comparable  rather 
to  anarchism  than  socialism,  to  a  mild,  sweet,  and  holy 
anarchy  to  which  all  law  and  every  activity  of  life  would 
be  left,  to  the  liberty  of  the  soul  and  the  conscience  of 
the  perfectible  individual. 

In  one  sole  point  is  affinity  perceivable  between  social- 
ism and  Christianity,  and  that  is  in  the  negative  and 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          33 

popular  part  of  their  doctrine — that  is  to  say,  in  the 
ready  and  deeply  felt  condemnation  of  social  inequali- 
ties and  injustices.  This  affinity  does  not  exist  in 
the  reconstructive  domain  where  the  designation  and 
means  of  the  cure  and  the  remedies  to  be  applied  to 
the  evils  of  society  have  to  be  considered.  Hence,  in 
their  propaganda  against  these  evils,  resemblance  exists 
between  Christianity  and  socialism,  but  not  identity. 

The  early  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  were  prodi- 
gal of  their  reprobation  and  threats  against  wealth,  and 
particularly  against  property,  in  a  vast  and  florid  lit- 
erature which  in  our  own  day  would  be  described  as  more 
than  subversive,  and  which  not  all  socialists,  not  even 
the  most  ardent,  are  at  present  accustomed  to  adopt. 
A  humorous  French  writer  found  material  for  a  book 
in  his  researches  among  this  literature.28  One  of  the 
most  moderate  stylists  is  S.  John  Chrysostom,  who  ex- 
presses himself  to  the  following  effect :  "  This  is  the 
idea  which  we  must  form  of  the  rich.  They  are  veri- 
table robbers  posted  on  the  highway,  where  they  strip 
travellers  of  all  they  possess,  and  heap  up  in  their 
houses,  as  in  caves,  the  goods  of  which  they  have  de- 
spoiled others."  29  Not  less  vigorous  are  the  expres- 
sions used  by  S.  Gregory  the  Great :  "  There  is  no  great- 
ness simply  in  not  robbing  others  of  what  they  possess, 
and  vainly  do  those  believe  themselves  innocent  who  ap- 
propriate the  sole  goods  that  God  has  rendered  com- 
mon. By  not  giving  to  others  what  they  have  received, 
they  become  homicides,  since,  retaining  for  themselves 
what  would  have  alleviated  the  sufferings  of  the  poor, 
they  may  be  said  to  kill  every  day  as  many  people  as 
they  might  have  succoured."  30  And  S.  Jerome :  "  Opu- 
lence is  always  the  product  of  robbery,  which,  if  not 
committed  by  the  present  proprietors,  certainly  was  by 
their  predecessors."  31  S.  Basilius  says :  "  You  rich  act 


34          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

like  a  man  who,  being  in  a  theatre  and  having  secured 
the  best  places  that  others  might  have  taken,  seeks  to 
prevent  anybody  else  from  entering."  32  S.  Ambrose 
describes  private  right  as  born  of  usurpation.33  S. 
Augustine  declares :  "  Property  is  in  no  way  derived 
from  natural  right  but  positive  right,  and  rests  simply 
upon  civil  authority."  34  Tertullian,  speaking  more  in 
the  spirit  of  a  layman,  says :  "  Everything  must  be  in 
common  among  us  except  women."  35  And  many  other 
quotations  to  the  same  effect  might  be  adduced. 

Jesus  Himself  did  not  spare  sharp  and  vehement  words 
in  this  or  in  any  other  matter  which  called  for  repro- 
bation, but  to  no  one  so  much  as  in  His  own  case  do 
mutilation  of  His  doctrine  and  garbling  of  His  words 
do  such  great  affront  and  prejudice.  His  idea  is  simple, 
organic,  indivisible,  and  cannot  be  properly  understood 
if  abstraction  be  made  of  his  preaching.  When,  for 
instance,  we  read  in  the  Gospel  that  He  recommended 
the  young  man  desirous  of  following  His  teaching  to 
sell  all  he  had  and  to  follow  Him,36  we  must  not  think 
that  a  contradiction  exists  between  this  incontestable  dec- 
laration of  the  negation  of  wealth  and  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  idea  of  the  detention  and  administration  of 
wealth  by  its  proprietors  for  the  benefit  of  their  neigh- 
bours. Jesus  sometimes  commanded  the  renunciation  of 
every  means  of  wealth,  but  did  not  impose  upon  all  this 
renunciation,  which  results  from  a  singular  gift,  from 
a  special  vocation.  He  imposed  it  solely  upon  those 
who  asked  Him  to  allow  them  to  dedicate  their  lives  to 
the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel.37 And  among  these  was  certainly  the  young  pro- 
prietor whom  He  recommended  to  sell  all  and  follow 
Him.  The  suggestion  was  irrefutable,  since  it  must  be 
concluded  that  those  who  dedicate  themselves  to  preach- 
ing and  heavenly  things  would  be  the  worst  administra- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  35 

tors  of  this  world's  goods,  injuring  not  only  themselves, 
but  also  those  depending  upon  a  good  administration  of 
their  property.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  another  incom- 
patibility of  a  practical  and  decisive  kind  arises.  It  Is 
that  if  a  healthy  man  may  console  a  sick  man,  a  wealthy 
man  may  not  preach  to  the  poor  man  that  riches  have 
no  value,  and  that  in  any  case  they  have  not  so  much 
price  as  to  be  worth  incurring  hatred  and  vengeance  to 
acquire  them,  rather  than  exercise  resignation  and  lov- 
ing-kindness. 

Similarly  Jesus  mentioned  those  who  became  eunuchs 
in  order  to  follow  Him  in  the  way  of  heaven,  and  on 
one  occasion  said :  "  If  any  man  come  to  Me  and  hate 
not  his  father  and  mother  and  wife  and  children  and 
brethren  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  can- 
not be  My  disciple."  38  But  even  these  and  other  utter- 
ances, which  should  be  interpreted  in  a  broad  and  not 
narrow  spirit,  are  addressed  to  those  few  disciples  who 
volunteered  to  follow  Him  directly.  As  regards  all 
other  men,  Jesus  believes  it  possible  that  at  their  risk 
and  peril  they  may  live  with  their  faith  in  the  position 
wherein  fortune  has  placed  them,  each  remaining  in  his 
calling  and  station  in  life.  Moreover,  the  Apostles 
themselves  did  not  put  before  everything  the  poor  and 
ascetic  life.  They  proclaimed  that  the  labourer  was 
worthy  of  his  hire  and  did  not  repudiate  their  own  wives. 
Of  St.  Peter  it  is  even  related  that  his  wife  accompanied 
him  on  his  missions,  and  the  statement  that  the  Apostles 
endeavoured  to  found  a  sort  of  communism  in  the  early 
days  of  Christianity  in  Jerusalem  is  not  confirmed.39 

But  do  the  thoughts  and  the  style  of  Jesus,  as  exam- 
ined in  the  argument  on  the  economic  question,  make  of 
Him  a  subverter  and  a  rebel  before  the  state  of  general 
contemporary  opinion  regarding  wealth?  And  may 
His  thoughts  and  His  style  furnish  matter  for  accusa- 


36          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

tion  in  regard  to  the  institutions  and  laws  of  His  time? 
Neither  hypothesis  is  justifiable. 

Above  all,  the  new  and  original  inculcation  of  mercy 
upon  the  rich  and  resignation  upon  the  poor  exhaled 
such  a  fragrance  of  peace  and  human  concord  that  con- 
servatives of  the  age  in  which  Jesus  lived  could  not  de- 
sire in  this  argument  anything  less  anti-social  and  more 
opportune.  Moreover,  the  most  spontaneous  democratic 
fervour  had  long  agitated  the  Jewish  race.  In  the 
pages  of  the  Old  Testament  the  thought  often  occurs 
that  God  is  the  protector  of  the  poor  and  of  the  weak 
against  the  rich  and  powerful.  The  Book  of  Enoch 
contains  maledictions  no  less  violent  than  in  the  Gospel 
against  pomp  and  riches.  Luxury  is  treated  as  a 
crime :  40  the  initiation  of  the  Hebrew  people  to  profane 
life,  the  gradual  introduction  of  well-being  and  soft- 
ness in  the  Israelite  cities,  the  invasion  of  commerce  and 
its  corruptions,  provoked  a  furious  reaction  in  favour 
of  the  lost  patriarchal  simplicity.  The  name  of  ebion 
(poor  person)  became  synonymous  with  holy  man,  and 
the  term  "  ebionism,"  with  a  life  of  sanctity.41  Man, 
according  to  the  idea  of  Job,  is  born  to  labour  as  the 
bird  to  fly.42  Whosoever  deprives  a  man  of  the  bread 
gained  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow  is  like  unto  him  who 
murders  his  kind.43  In  Leviticus  we  read  that  the  Lord 
hath  said :  "  The  land  shall  not  be  sold  for  ever,  for 
the  land  is  Mine,  for  ye  are  strangers  and  sojourners 
with  Me."  44  The  prophets,  orators  of  the  most  liberal 
tendencies,  constantly  repeated  these  trenchant  utter- 
ances, which  recovered  actuality  in  the  popular  dislike 
of  the  ever-increasing  concentration  of  wealth. 

Mosaic  legislation  as  resulting  from  Scripture,  and 
particularly  from  the  Pentateuch,  was  a  programme  of 
theocratic  communism  based  on  solidarity.  Property 
was  not  an  absolute  right — the  succession  of  women  was 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          37 

limited,  the  transfer  of  the  paternal  heritage  to  various 
tribes  on  the  occasion  of  marriages  and  agnatic  prefer- 
ences, intended  to  assure  the  permanence  of  property  in 
families,  were  prohibited.  Other  measures  were  the  sur- 
render imposed  upon  owners  of  the  spoils  of  battle  in 
favour  of  the  poor,  the  remission  of  debts,  and  the  rest 
given  to  the  earth  every  seven  years,  the  division  of 
national  territory  among  the  twelve  tribes,  the  jubilee, 
or  the  restitution  at  the  end  of  fifty  years  of  the  lands 
alienated  in  favour  of  former  proprietors  and  their 
heirs,  the  organisation  of  mutual  services,  the  tithe,  the 
other  fees  in  favour  of  the  priest,  the  limitation  of  usury, 
the  obligation  of  alms-giving,  indicated  by  a  word 
signifying  justice  (tsedakak).  Other  similar  obliga- 
tions recommended  by  injunctions  in  the  moral  order 
abound  in  the  Hebrew  laws.45  Such  and  so  many  were 
the  legal  limitations  imposed  upon  wealth,  as  to  show 
that  the  state  of  economic  legislation  was  not  much 
below  the  demands  of  popular  opinion. 

The  views  of  Jesus  upon  wealth  cannot  then  be  op- 
posed either  to  the  traditions  or  the  laws  or  the  opinion 
of  His  time,  although  they  may  differ  essentially  from 
them.  They  are  certainly  in  strong  contrast  to  the  feel- 
ing of  easy  and  contented  egotism  of  the  holders  of 
wealth,  who  perceived  to  their  great  chagrin  in  the 
propaganda  of  the  new  rabbi  or  prophet  a  brightness 
and  an  insinuating  and  victorious  charm  which  they 
had  never  noticed  or  feared  in  any  other  preachings. 
The  rich  could  not  be  friends,  but  neither  could  they  be 
the  accusers  of  Jesus,  since  His  attitude  and  language 
in  the  argument  was  perfectly  legal,  but  they  cherished 
in  their  hearts  on  account  of  His  words  a  strong  and 
deep  aversion,  anxious  to  find  a  pretext  on  the  first 
favourable  occasion  to  support  an  accusation  that  might 
have  any  semblance  of  legality.  Here,  however,  even 


38          THE    TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

the  appearance  of  culpability  was  wanting,  and  Jesus 
must  of  necessity  be  acknowledged  innocent,  since  His 
doctrine,  differing  from,  or  rather  in  contrast  with, 
every  other  economic  movement  in  history,  contained 
nothing  of  a  temporal  character.  Nothing  of  the 
human  action  of  Jesus,  either  on  this  point  or  any  other 
of  His  doctrine,  ever  aimed  at  violating  the  laws  or  in- 
stitutions: it  sought  only  to  educate  and  move  public 
feeling  in  a  spirit  differing  from  their  provisions.  Even 
had  property  been  the  jealous  institution  which  it  is 
now,  and  was  not  then,  it  is  certain  that  the  Master  of 
Nazareth  would  never  have  incited  any  one  to  attack 
it.  He  never  taught  the  acquisition  of  it  even  by 
pacific  means,  and  to  no  one  did  He  promise  the  advent 
of  economic  justice  upon  earth. 


NOTES 

1  Genesis  xxiii.  13,  18,  20. 

2  Numbers  xxvi.  53;  Joshua  xiv.  9.     Cf.  Nitti,  I.e. 

3  The  description  "  unfruitful "  here  used  by  the  Baptist  should 
not  be  understood  as   applying  exclusively  to  the  evil  of  un- 
productiveness :  it  is  also  to  be  interpreted  as  absorbing  nourish- 
ment while  rendering  nothing  in  return. 

4  S.  Matthew  v.  45. 

6  S.  Luke  vi.  24,  25. 

6  S.  Matthew  v.  vi.  vii. ;  S.  Luke  vi.  20-49. 

7  S.  Matthew  xix.  23,  24;  S.  Mark  23,  25. 

8  S.  Luke  xvi.  19-22,  23.     Against  the  arbitrary  description  of 
the  rich  man  as  bad,  cf.  Curci,  Di  un  socialismo  Crist,  nella 
quest,  oper.  Florence,  Bencini,  1885,  cap.  vii.  par.  14.     In  the 
same  sense  Reuss,  Histoire  de  la  theologie  chretienne  au  siecle 
apostolique,  lib.  vi.  cap.  vi. 

&  S.  Luke  xvi.  1-10. 

10  S.  Mark  x.  17-21;  S.  Matthew  xix.  16-30. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS          39 

11  S.  John  xvii.  11,  cf.  20,  21,  22. 

12  S.  Lukexi.  41. 

13  The  quod  super est  of  the  Vulgate  was  not  read  in  the  text 
by  Origen  (in  Levitic.  homil.  ii.),  by  S.  Chrysostom  (in  Matth. 
homil.  ii.),  by  S.  Ciprianus  (Ad  Quirinam,  lib.  ii.  cap.  i.),  by 
S.  Ambrosius    (Expos,   evang.  sec.  Lucam,  lib.  vii.   101),  nor 
by  A.  Lapide  (Comm.  in  Lucam,  xi.  41),  who  also  mentions 
five  different  modes  of  interpretation,  among  which  the  quod 
superest  does  not  appear;  S.  Augustine,  where  it  is  read  (Enchiri- 
dion, cap.  Ixxvi.)  and  where  it  is  not  read  (De  verbis  Domini, 
sermo  xxx.).     Jansenius  understands   the  passage   in  its  true 
sense — i.e.  in  the  sense  of  things  which  one  actually  possesses, 
ea  qua?  adsunt  (Comm.  in  cone,  evang.  cap.  Ixxxiv.).     Cf.  Curci, 
Note  esegetiche  e  morali  espositive  del  N.  T.  Florence,  Bocca, 
1879,  vol.  i.  p.  387 ;   ibid.    Lezioni   sopra   i  quattro  evangeli. 
Florence,  1874,  vol.  iv.  lez.    viii.  p.  14;   ibid.  Di  un  socialisms 
cristiano  nella  questione  operaia,  etc.,  Florence,  Bencini,  1885, 
cap.  vii.  par.  14. 

14  S.  Matthew  vi.  24;  S.  Luke  xvi.  13.    In  the  text,  "  riches" 
is  rendered  by  the  world  mammona,  which  had  that  signification 
in  the  Chaldean  language.     Cf.  S.  Luke  xvi.  9,  11. 

15  Cf.  Negri,  L'imp.  Giuliano  VApost.  Milan,  1902,  2nd.  ed. 
p.  151  el  seq.     Kheltchitsky,  La  rete  della  fede.    A  very  original 
work  of  the  fifteenth  century  in  the  Greek  language,  cited  by 
Tolstoi,  II  regno  di  Dio  e  in  vol.  cap.  i. 

16  Harnack,  L'essenza  del  Crist,  conf .  vi. 

17  The  erroneous  idea  of  the  annihilation  of  riches  has  been 
repeated  by  Nitti,  II  social,  catt.  cap.  iii.  p.  61. 

18  St.  Thomas,  II.— II.  Qucest.  LXV.  to  II.;  Qucest.  LXVI.  to 
II.     St.  Gregory  the  Great  in  Evang.  horn.  ix.  n.  7. 

19  Harnack,  I.e. 

20  Todt,  77  socialisms  radicale  tedesco,  R.  Herrose,  1878,  Prefaz. 

21  Nitti,  //  social,  catt.  2nd  ed.  p.  10  et  seq. 

22  Plato,  Republic,  i.  4.     Cf.  Fustel  de  Coulanges  in  Comptes 
rendus  de  I'academie  de  sciences  morales,  Janvier,  1880;  Nitti,  I.e. 

23  F.  T.  Perrens,  Histoire  de  Florence,  Paris,  1877,  torn.  i.  p.  207. 

24  Bebel,  cited  by  Winterer,  Discours  prononce  au  Congres 
social  de  Liege,  Rixheim,  1887,  p.  14.     Cf .  Nitti,  I.e. 

25  Valerian,  cited  by  Nitti,  I.e. 


40          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

26  The  economist  is  quoted  but  not  named  by  De  Amicis, 
Osservaz.  sulla  quest,  soc.  Lecce,  Tip.  Coop.  1894,  p.  7. 

27  Harnack  expresses  a  similar  idea,  observing  that  the  Gospel 
is  always  and  deeply  individualist,  although  referring  to  the 
mission  of  the  soul,  solidarity  and  fraternal  help;  it  is  only  and 
virtually  socialist  because  it  leads  to  the  formation  among  men 
of  a  community,  comprehensive  as  life  itself  and  profound  as 
human  need  (Uessenza  del  Crist,  conf.  vi.). 

28  Victor  Meunier,  Jesus-Christ  devant  les  conseils  de  guerre, 
as  appendix  to  Socialisme  devant  le  vieux  monde  of  V.  Considerant, 
Paris,  Librairie  Phalansterienne,  1849.     This  appendix,  which 
from  its  deceptive  title  would  appear  to  be  dedicated  to  the  matter 
of  the  trial  of  Jesus,  does  not  even  treat  of  it  indirectly.     It  is 
a  comparative  selection  of  the  thoughts  of  Jesus  and  the  Fathers 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  laws  and  to  the 
rigours  of  modern  society.    The  work  is  dedicated  ironically  to 
the  citizen  Procurator-General  of  the  Republic.     Its  object  is 
to  demonstrate  how,  if  Jesus  had  been  brought  before  the  French 
tribunals   (this  is  the  author's  sole  reason  for  mentioning  the 
councils  of  war,  or  courts-martial)  he  would  not  have  fared  better 
than  before  Caiaphas.     Cf.  Feugueray,  Essais  sur  les  doctrines 
politiques   de   Saint-Thomas   d'Aquin.   Paris,    1857;     cap.    int. 
Democratic  des  Peres  de  VEglise,  p.  217;  Laveleye,  Le  socialisme 
contemporain,  Preface,  p.  xvii. 

29  De  officiis,  lib.  i.  cap.  xxviii. 

30  Opera:  Regimen  pastorale,  c.  22. 

31  Epist.  ad  Hedibiam.    Cf.  Meunier,  op.  cit.  p.  237;  Laveleye, 
op.  cit.  p.  xvii. 

32  Concio  de  divitiis  et  paupertate. 

33  Serin .  64  in  Luc.  cap.  xvi. 

34  In  Evangelium  Joannis,  vi.  25,  26. 
S5Apolog.  c.  39. 

36  S.  Matthew  xix.  16,  30,  v.  s. 

37  Harnack,  op.  cit.  conf.  v. 

38  S.  Luke  xiv.  26.     Some — e.g.  Curci — believe  that  a  mis- 
understanding has  occurred  in  these  words  in  the  first  Evangelist, 
in  the  text  of  which  an  important  idiom  left  in  the  third  had  been 
avoided  (the  Hebrews  having  no  comparative  degrees,  used  the 
contrary  of  the  positive  to  express  the  least),  and  that  the  injunc- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          41 

tion  read  thus:  "Qui  amat  patrem  et  matrem  plusquam  me, 
non  est  me  dignus,"  and  similarly  of  the  sons  (S.  Matthew  x. 
37;  S.  Luke  xiv.  26).  Di  un  socialismo  crist.,  etc.  cap.  vii.  par. 
11,  p.  231. 

39  Harnack,  op.  cit.  conf.  v. 

40  S.  James  ii.  6. 

41  S.  James  ii.  1  et  seq.     C.  Renan,  Saint-Paul,  p.  511;   Nitti, 
II  socialismo,  cap.  iii. 

42  v.  7. 
43xxxiv.  26. 

44  Leviticus  xxv.  23. 

45  Deuteronomy  xxiii.  15;  Exodus  xxii.  25,  xxiii.  12,  xxxii.  13; 
Leviticus  xix.  9;   Numbers  xxxvi.  6-9;   Ep.  ai.  Cor.  v.  10,  11, 
vi.  10  et  seq.    Cf.  Simmer  Maine,  L'ancien  droit,  p.  187. 


CHAPTER   IV 

The  Religious  Doctrine  of  Jesus — His  Vehemence  against  the 
Desecrators  of  the  Temple — High  Emoluments  of  the  Priests 
and  Levites — The  Interests  of  the  Priesthood  bound  up  with 
those  of  the  Nation — The  Idea  of  the  Theocratic  Constitution 
— The  Covenant  and  the  Mosaic  Law — The  Sanctuary  in 
Jerusalem  the  Centre  of  the  National  Forces — Christ's  Attitude 
neither  Theocratic  nor  Nationalist — The  Fulfilment  of  the 
Law  of  Moses — His  Resolute  Opposition  to  the  Officialism 
Predominant  in  Public  Worship — At  the  Well  of  Sichem — 
The  Fanatics  join  the  Rich  in  their  Hatred  of  Jesus. 

THE  second  revolutionising  blow  was  to  fall  on  the  old 
and  fragile  fabric  of  worship  which  in  Palestine  rep- 
resented the  nationalisation  of  a  God  exclusive  to  a  priv- 
ileged people,  and  the  monopoly  of  a  grasping  conser- 
vative caste:  another  evident  contradiction  of  the  high- 
est conception  of  a  God,  Father  of  the  universal  family. 
Jesus  knows  the  priests,  scribes,  and  Pharisees  in  Jeru- 
salem to  be  all  equally  addicted  to  trafficking  with  the 
faith.  One  Easter-day  He  beholds  the  enclosure  of  the 
temple  crowded  with  usurers  and  money-changers,  with 
animals  and  the  traders  selling  them  for  sacrifice.  At 
the  sight,  laying  aside  His  usual  gentleness  and  twist- 
ing a  scourge  of  cords,  He  upsets  the  benches,  scatters 
the  money,  and  drives  the  merchants  and  beasts  out  of 
the  temple.  Nobody  has  the  courage  to  oppose  Him. 
All  remain  aghast  at  such  boldness,  but  the  allegorical 
words,  interpreted  in  a  subversive  sense  on  this  occasion, 
have  been  preserved :  "  I  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple 
of  God  and  to  build  it  in  three  days."  * 

42 

I 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          43 

The  scourge  had  fallen  on  the  officers  of  the  holy 
trafficking  place.  The  business  then  carried  on  by  the 
temple,  owing  to  the  comminations  of  the  law  and  the 
encouragement  given  to  superstition,  had  become  such 
a  mine  of  wealth  that  to  disturb  the  obedience  and  fer- 
vour of  contributors  meant  endangering  the  revenues 
and  attacking  the  greed  of  the  priests.  To  them  was 
assigned  a  great  part  of  the  burnt-offerings ;  theirs  were 
the  first-fruits  of  the  fields  and  the  first-born  of  the 
flocks,  and  even  of  the  men,  for  whom  a  proportionate 
ransom  had  to  be  paid;  theirs  the  tithes  of  all  agricul- 
tural revenues ;  theirs  a  share  of  the  booty  in  war ;  theirs 
the  poll-tax  of  half  a  shekel  on  the  occasion  of  a  general 
census;  theirs  the  lands  of  the  faithful  consecrated  to 
Jehovah;  theirs  the  offerings  brought  by  the  faithful 
to  the  temple  at  the  three  annual  festivals.  Augustus 
himself,  who  was  disposed  to  act  cautiously  towards  the 
province  of  Judaea,  being  aware  of  its  fanatically  re- 
ligious spirit,  ordered  the  sanctuary  to  be  decorated  at 
his  expense.  Livia  did  the  same,  and  the  smoke  of  the 
burnt  sacrifice  of  a  bull  and  two  lambs  rose  every  day 
before  the  altar  by  imperial  decree.  The  Levites  at- 
tached as  ministrants  to  the  priests  in  the  humblest 
duties  of  the  temple,  such  as  the  custody  and  cleaning  of 
the  precincts  and  the  care  of  its  furniture,  fleeced  the 
pious  flock  at  second  hand,  sharing  the  daily  and  annual 
emoluments  of  the  priests.2 

All  this  was  due  to  the  close  solidarity  existing  between 
the  interests  of  the  nation  and  those  of  the  priesthood, 
the  incarnation  of  the  theocratic  government  in  whose 
sight  God  Himself  was  the  author  of  the  law,  the  ruler 
of  the  nation. 

In  the  Israelite  monotheism  the  law  was  the  humani- 
sation  of  God.  So  long  as  it  remained  in  the  mind  of 
Jehovah  it  would  have  been  an  abstract  idea  and  could 


44          THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

not  have  been  a  visible  manifestation  of  Him,  and  in 
order  that  God  should  manifest  Himself  it  was  necessary 
that  His  law  should  become  humanised  in  a  finite  being, 
and  it  did  this  in  Israel.  In  this  way  the  people  of 
Israel  became  God's  chosen  people,  not  because  it  was 
Israel,  but  because  it  was  Jehovist ;  it  was  the  people  of 
the  law  because  it  was  the  people  of  Jehovah — the  peo- 
ple who  proclaimed  and  obeyed  Jehovah  and  the  law. 
Jehovah,  law,  Israel,  formed  one  sole  idea,  the  mono- 
theistic idea,  in  the  theocratic  land  of  Moses. 

The  idea  of  the  Pagan  world,  though  originally  start- 
ing from  man  and  nature,  personified  the  phenomena  of 
one  and  the  other  in  creating  its  divinities,  and  had  to 
do  the  same  in  founding  its  various  political  constitu- 
tions ;  it  had,  that  is  to  say,  to  centre  its  social  existence 
in  one  man  or  in  a  gathering  of  men.  In  the  despotic 
governments  of  Asia  the  despot  united  in  himself  the 
idea  of  form,  of  justice,  of  society  itself;  in  the  aristo- 
cratic republics  of  Greece  everything  centred  in  the 
moral  entity  of  the  State;  in  the  Roman  republic  the 
moral  entity  was  Rome,  uniting  in  itself  the  whole  uni- 
verse; in  a  theocratic  society  such  as  the  Jewish, 
Jehovah,  who  represents  being,  i.e.  all  creation,  nat- 
urally also  represents  social  existence. 

A  contract,  or  covenant  as  it  is  called  in  the  Mosaic 
history — a  social  contract  very  different  from  the  one 
imagined  by  J.  Jacques  Rousseau — created  the  bond 
between  the  people  and  God  which  contains  the  law  of 
this  people ;  "  a  holy  people  and  a  kingdom  of  priests." 
according  to  the  biblical  expression.  The  primordial 
constitutions  of  the  new  law  are  communicated  by  Je- 
hovah Himself  to  the  people  when  He  reveals  Himself 
on  Sinai :  Jehovah  speaks — Moses  assembles  the  delegates 
of  the  people  and  imparts  the  divine  propositions;  the 
people  reply  by  a  unanimous  shout  of  assent;  Moses 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS          45 

takes  the  popular  consent  to  Jehovah,  and  here,  between 
God  and  the  people,  the  covenant  by  free  and  full  elec- 
tion is  accomplished,  binding  one  to  the  other  and,  being 
declared  continuous,  will  be  also  binding  on  future  gen- 
erations. Moses,  from  whom  the  Israelitish  law  has  its 
name,  on  the  day  when  the  people  believed  themselves 
to  be  face  to  face  with  God,  when  the  real  treaty  con- 
cerning the  new  law  was  promulgated,  was  only  the  in- 
terpreter of  the  people.  The  latter  were  convinced  of 
having  been  in  direct  communication  with  God,  and  only 
from  terror  at  the  divine  contact  delegated  their  power 
to  Moses.  "  We  ourselves,"  said  the  delegates  of  the 
people  to  Moses,  "  with  our  own  eyes,  mortal  as  they 
are,  have  contemplated  the  divine  greatness,  but  in 
future  approach  thou  rather  and  hear  all  things  that 
the  Lord  shall  speak,  and  bring  them  to  us."  4  Only 
by  virtue  of  such  a  delegation  ^id  Moses  receive  the  law 
for  his  people — a  law  divine,  not  only  in  its  origin,  but 
in  its  full  application,  so  that  the  priests  alone  can  act 
as  its  interpreters  and  executors. 

At  the  time  of  Jesus,  the  Jehovist  priesthood  strained 
every  nerve  to  preserve  the  traditions,  the  bonds  of  con- 
nection, and,  above  all,  the  advantages  accruing  from 
the  mystical  sentiment  of  the  people  vaunting  itself 
divine.  But  by  this  time  Israel  had  become  no  more 
than  the  shadow  of  itself ;  the  schools  and  sects  had  con- 
quered it,  the  Roman  eagles  had  torn  it,  the  holy  city 
meant  no  more  than  the  chief  city  of  a  humble  province 
annexed  by  Rome,  and  was  compelled  to  tolerate  within 
its  walls  an  imperial  garrison — which  to  the  Jews  meant 
a  permanent  sin  of  idolatry.  The  priesthood  was  a 
centre  in  the  sanctuary  for  all  the  scattered  forces  of 
the  faith,  and  more  than  ever  directed  urgent  appeals 
to  the  people  to  turn  with  patience  and  confidence  to 
Jehovah,  the  author  of  its  law  and  civil  constitution. 


46          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

In  proportion  as  this  appeal  was  responded  to,  priestly 
interests  throve,  but  these  declined  from  time  to  time 
when  the  appeal  failed,  as  it  did  occasionally.  All  the 
rights  of  the  priesthood  rested  on  the  triumph  of  the 
national  idea:  every  act  of  recognition  of  these  rights 
was  a  step  towards  the  glory  of  Jehovah  and  of  the  na- 
tion :  woe  then  to  the  priests  if  they  went  to  sleep  upon 
their  slender  laurels!  A  few  years'  lethargy  would 
have  decided  their  irreparable  ruin.  Hence  every  mani- 
festation of  popular  sentiment,  every  sacred  or  national 
festival,  took  place  in  the  sanctuary;  the  concourse  of 
the  people  brought  profit  to  the  priesthood;  but  at  the 
same  time,  Jehovah,  the  national  idea,  triumphed.5 

Jesus,  neither  theocratic  nor  nationalist,  necessarily  a 
stranger  to  political  interests  and  compromises,  consist- 
ently adverse  to  the  sacrilegious  paradox  of  an  earthly 
kingdom  of  God,  could  not  countenance  a  religion  which 
was  at  once  a  legal  institution  and  a  patriotic  expedient. 
By  His  indignant  action  against  the  traffickers  in  the 
temple,  as  by  His  whole  teaching,  He  does  not  combat 
the  sentiment  of  the  faith,  but  He  strips  it  of  the  laurels 
and  parasitical  suckers  of  personal  and  national  vested 
interests. 

His  action  and  His  doctrine  are  not  a  negation  of  or 
a  slur  on  the  law  of  Moses,  but  its  fulfilment  and  con- 
summation. He  can  say :  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come 
to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come 
to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil."  6 

Moses  was  the  legislator  of  deeds,  Jesus  of  the  soul. 
Moses  prohibited  murder,  Jesus  hatred  itself;  Moses 
adultery,  Jesus  even  an  impure  thought;  Moses  perjury, 
Jesus  the  oath  itself.  Moses,  as  a  measure  of  justice, 
conceded  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth;  Jesus 
points  to  no  other  justice  than  forgiveness.  Moses 
said :  "  Judge  with  wisdom  and  without  guile,"  Jesus 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          47 

says:  "Judge  not,  lest  ye  be  judged."  Moses  recon- 
ciled masters  and  slaves;  Jesus  desires  that  there  shall 
only  be  brothers.  Moses  commanded  the  good  use  of 
riches;  Jesus  urges  the  use  in  common  of  the  fruits,  if 
not  community  of  possession  of  all  property.  Moses, 
making  laws  for  the  Hebrew  people,  took  thought  for 
the  exceptions ;  Jesus  dictating  one  sole  law  of  love  for 
the  human  species,  legislated  for  the  universe.  Moses 
established  the  worship  and  prestige  of  the  temple ;  Jesus 
erects  an  altar  in  every  heart  capable  of  purity  or  re- 
pentance, of  perfection  or  of  sacrifice.  Moses  recom- 
mended respect  for  age  and  childhood ;  Jesus  for  all  the 
weak  and  disinherited,  even  for  forlorn  women.  Moses 
proclaimed  the  indissoluble  nature  of  the  contract 
between  the  people  and  the  natural  law,  so  soon  to 
harden  and  crystallise  under  the  impulse  of  universal 
progress;  Jesus  affirms  the  perfectibility  of  human 
nature  and  of  every  law  which  governs  it,  and  He  im- 
parts to  it  the  impress  of  immortal  life  with  the  free- 
dom and  infinite  worth  of  the  soul  that  is  stirred  by  the 
creative  breath  of  divine  love.7  But  to  the  interested 
upholders  of  the  Mosaic  law  the  work  of  Jesus  did  not 
mean  fulfilment,  but  subversion,  as  being  directed  in  its 
general  tendency  and  results  against  its  official  conduc- 
tors of  public  worship  acting  as  interpreters  and  greedy 
custodians  of  the  law. 

The  allusion  to  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  which 
will  also  form  one  of  the  heads  of  indictment  before  the 
Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem,  was  only  a  sort  of  hypothesis 
or  hyperbole  bearing  a  perfectly  innocent  signification, 
as  will  be  shown;  but  other  declarations  of  Jesus  are 
clear  and  irrefutable  as  to  the  fact  of  His  repudiating 
the  whole  official  system  of  public  worship. 

One  day  after  He  had  won  in  the  holy  city  itself 
numerous  admirers  and  followers,  among  whom  was 


48          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  rich  Pharisee  Nicodemus,  wishing  to  return  to  His 
own  Galilee,  He  started  for  Samaria.  He  might  have 
taken  another  route  passing  through  Perea,  crossing  the 
Jordan  and  going  up  the  river  again  on  the  other  side, 
but  He  had  a  special  and  well-considered  reason  for 
His  choice.8 

In  consequence  of  ancient  feuds  Samaria  was  most 
hostile  to  Judaea,  while  as  to  its  religion,  it  was  more 
heretical  than  Gentile.  The  Jews  avoided  Samaria  in 
their  journeyings  for  fear  of  being  contaminated  or  of 
lightly  exposing  themselves  to  affronts:  Jesus,  on  the 
contrary,  prefers  to  pass  through  it,  and  while  crossing 
the  vale  of  Sichem  stops  at  a  well  to  rest.  A  woman 
comes  to  draw  water,  and  Jesus  asks  her  to  give  Him 
to  drink.  The  woman,  having  recognised  Him  as  a 
Judaean  by  His  accent,  is  astonished,  and  observes : 

"  How  is  that  Thou,  being  a  Jew,  askest  drink  of  me, 
which  am  a  woman  of  Samaria?  for  the  Jews  have  no 
dealings  with  the  Samaritans." 

Jesus  gives  to  the  conversation  a  spiritual  turn  and 
tries  to  rouse  celestial  feelings  in  that  simple  soul.  But 
the  woman  insists :  "  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this 
mountain;  and  ye  say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place 
where  men  ought  to  worship." 

And  Jesus  rejoins:  "Woman,  believe  Me,  the  hour 
cometh  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet 
at  Jerusalem,  worship  the  Father.  But  the  true  wor- 
shippers shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  Him.  God  is 
a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship  Him 
in  spirit  and  in  truth."  9 

Eternal  and  irrefutable  words,  the  synthesis  of  the 
whole  religion  of  Jesus! 

"  These  words  alone,"  exclaims  Giuseppe  Mazzini, 
"  would  suffice  to  establish  the  superiority  of  Christianity 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          49 

over  all  other  creeds — the  great  thinkers  from  Socrates 
and  Plato  to  those  of  our  own  time  predicted  the  fall  of 
one  faith  and  the  rise  of  another;  but  not  one  foretold 
like  Jesus  the  true  nature  of  a  future  faith."  10 

Were  these  words  reported  to  the  Pharisees  and  other 
hypocrites  interested  in  the  faith  and  in  the  shekels  of 
the  temple  ?  It  is  certain  that  the  Master  did  not  refrain 
from  repeating  them  in  every  form.  In  one  of  His  most 
expressive  parables  He  gives  a  conclusive  illustration 
of  the  same  thought:  a  man  goes  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho  and  falls  among  thieves,  who  strip  him  and  leave 
him  severely  hurt  on  the  roadside.  A  priest  comes  along, 
but  passes  him  by ;  a  Levite  also  passes  without  stopping ; 
but  a  certain  Samaritan  pauses,  succours  the  distressed 
man,  and  takes  care  of  him.11 

The  religious  profession  contained  in  His  words  at 
the  well  of  Sichem  formed  a  contrast  with  the  words  of 
the  law : — 

"  But  unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall 
choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  to  put  His  name  there, 
even  unto  His  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  thou 
shalt  come.  And  thither  ye  shall  bring  your  burnt-offer- 
ings, and  your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes,  and  heave 
offerings  of  your  hand,  and  your  vows,  and  your  free- 
will offerings,  and  the  firstlings  of  your  herds  and  of 
your  flocks."  "  Take  heed  to  thyself  that  thou  offer  not 
thy  burnt-offerings  in  every  place  that  thou  seest."  12 

And  we  know  what  place  Jehovah  had  chosen  from 
amongst  all  the  tribes  for  his  worship  and  habitation, 
and  best  of  all  was  it  known  to  the  Jerusalem  inter- 
preters, that  Jehovah  was  domiciled  in  Jerusalem !  That 
this  commandment  lacked  His  own  sanction  is  shown  by 
the  omission  of  any  penalty  for  non-observers:  the  bib- 
lical text  does  not  even  allude  generically  to  such  a 
penalty.13  However  the  legal  definitions  of  the  crime  of 


50          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

blasphemy  (ghiduf)  with  which  Jesus  was  charged 
later,  and  on  various  grounds  in  the  Sanhedrin,  might 
apply  to  the  fact  of  one  proclaiming  Himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  they  could  not  be  strained  to  incriminate  one 
who,  like  Jesus,  had  up  to  that  time  done  no  more  than 
decline  to  recognise  and  favour  the  hierarchic  privileges 
of  Jerusalem,  any  more  than  the  popular  prejudice  of 
Ebal  or  Gerizim. 

Christ's  attitude  on  this  point  could  only  be  regarded 
as  a  negative  one,  and  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
considered  otherwise  by  His  enemies.  But  it  was  to  be 
remembered  against  Him  and  to  be  brought  forward  to 
His  prejudice  in  the  characteristic  notes  of  the  charges 
to  be  alleged  against  Him — all  being  regarded  as  the 
tendencies  and  manifestations  of  a  suspected  man  in- 
criminating his  whole  political  and  religious  conduct — 
or,  as  it  is  barbarously  expressed  by  the  unblushing 
political  neologists  of  our  own  day  in  their  judicial 
prose,  "  the  misconduct  of  the  bad  citizen  " ! 

And  thus,  to  the  alarm  of  the  rich  threatened  in  their 
avarice  is  added  the  offended  superstition  of  the  fanatic 
haters  of  against  Jesus ! 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  61;    S.  Mark  xiv.  58,  xv.  29;    S.  John  ii. 
13  et  seq.     The  temple  was   the  second  one,  built  by  Zorobabel. 

2  Levi,  Sulla  teocrazia  Mosaica,  Florence,  Le  Monnier,  1865, 
pp.  129, 140.     The  author  of  this  lucid  and  learned  book  declares 
himself  "solemnly  and  openly  to  be  a  Hebrew  by  confession  and 
conviction,"  and  is  not  therefore  to  be  suspected  of  exaggeration 
in  this  and  other  similar  statements. 

3  Exodus  xix.  3,  6,  7;  Genesis  xvii.  2,  4,  xxii.  18. 

4  Deuteronomy  v.  24-7. 
6  Levi,  op.  dt. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          51 

6  St.  Matthew  v.  17:  Non  veni  solvere  sed  adimplere. 

7  Cf.  Petruccelli,  op.  cit.  vol.  ii.  p.  180. 

8  S.  John  iv.  3,  4.     It  is  not  understood  why  this  Evangelist 
should  here  speak  of  the  necessity  for  Jesus  to  return  to  Galilee 
by  way  of  Samaria  (oportebat  autem  eum  transire  per  Samariam). 

9  S.  John  iv.  7-24.     Sichar  and  not  Sichem  appears  in  the  text, 
but  S.  Jerome  (in  Epistaph.  Paulas]  shows  that  Sichar  was  the 
old  Sichem  (Genesis  xxxiv.  25-7,  xlviii.  22).     Eusebius,  however 
(Onomasticon),  calls  Sichem  Sichar,  which  was  known  later  as 
Neapolis  and  is  now   called  Naplusa   (see  also  Deuteronomy 
xxvii.  4,  12) ;  and  at  the  present  time,  at  a  distance  of  not  more 
than  twenty-five  minutes'  journey  from  Naplusa,  in  the  road 
leading  from  the  valley  of  Mokua  and  the  valley  of  Sichem, 
travellers  are  shown  the  well  or  fountain  of  Jacob,  now  known  as 
Bir-Jakub.     The  mountain  pointed  out  by  the  Samaritan  woman 
must  have  been  Gerizim  or  Ebal,  on  which,  according  to  biblical 
tradition,  God  caused  an  altar  to  be  erected  unto  Himself.    The 
Samaritan  codices  have  Gerizim  for  Ebal.     Renan  is  of  opinion 
that  the  historical  reality  of  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  the 
Samaritan  woman  at  the  well  of  Sichem  need  not  be  too  much 
insisted  upon,  since  only  Jesus  Himself  or  His  interlocutrix  could 
have  spoken  about  it  (Vie,  ch.  xiv.  note  at  the  end).     And  why 
not?    It  is  not  said  that  Jesus  mentioned  it  to  His  disciples, 
who  returned  shortly  afterwards  from  the  city,  where  they  had 
gone  to  buy  food  (S.  John  iv.  8,  27),  but  it  is  expressly  stated  by 
S.  John  that  the  woman  spoke  of  it,  or  commenced  doing  so, 
to  some  neighbours  and  gossips  in  the  town  when  she  left  her 
pitcher  at  the  well  and  went  into  the  town  saying,  "Come  and  see  a 
man  who  hath  told  me  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  done"  (iv. 
28,  29).     May  it  not  be  supposed  that  she  told  all  the  rest?— 
a  woman  too! 

10  Dal  concilia  a  Dio,  par.  vii.     Mazzini  expresses  elsewhere 
too  his  favourable  opinion  of  Christianity.     See,  for  example, 
/  sistemi  e  la  democrazia,  par.  1. 

11  St.  Luke  x.  30  et  seq. 

12  Deuteronomy  xii,  5,  6, 11, 13. 

13  Deuteronomy :   see  the  whole  of  chap.  xii. 


CHAPTER   V 

The  Political  Doctrine  of  Jesus — His  Indifference  to  Established 
Institutions — The  Law  founded  on  Force,  but  the  Moral  Law 
of  Jesus  confided  to  the  Liberty  of  the  Soul — Neither  Con- 
flict nor  Adhesion  between  Divine  and  Human  Authority — 
Tribute  to  Caesar — The  Individualism  of  Jesus  representing 
the  Integrity  of  Manhood  as  against  the  Claims  of  Citizenship 
— Renunciation  of  the  Law  and  Indifference  to  Institutions 
do  not  conflict  with  True  Justice  or  the  Combative  Element  in 
Life,  nor  with  Labour  or  the  Progress  of  Civilisation — All  the 
Less  Reason  was  there  that  any  such  Conflict  should  exist 
in  Ancient  Palestine — Jesus  did  not  compete  for  Political 
Power. 

THE  blow  dealt  against  civil  institutions  was  no  direct 
attack,  but  response  by  reaction  which  was  none  the  less 
effective. 

The  relation  between  Gospel  and  law  is  a  matter  of 
absolute  indifference.  All  the  originality  of  the  reform 
preached  by  Jesus  in  relation  to  the  State  consists  in 
rendering  some  indifferent  to  endure;  others  indifferent 
to  exercise  civil  power.  You  know,  He  says  to  His  fol- 
lowers, "the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion 
over  them,  and  tbey  that  are  great  exercise  authority 
upon  them.  Butvit  shall  not  be  so  among  you :  but  who- 
soever will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister ; 
and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your 
servant."  *  This  is  an  absolute  inversion  of  values :  the 
ordinary  conception  of  authority  is  turned  upside-down. 

Thus  act  the  powerful,  but  the  disciples  and  followers 
of  Jesus  in  all  times  must  do  the  contrary.  Thus  act 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          53 

the  powerful,  and  will  continue  so  acting  so  long  as 
those  who  are  not  actuated  by  altogether  opposite  senti- 
ments will  let  them,  and  who  therefore  support  them 
now  in  their  authority.  The  law,  be  it  of  Rome  or  of 
other  nations,  is  founded  in  its  essential  nature  on  force : 
"  A  ferocious  force  possesses  the  world,  and  calls  itself 
law." 

All  institutions  rest  on  no  other  basis.  Now  the  king- 
dom of  God  announced  by  the  good  tidings  knows  of 
no  other  than  moral  force;  knows  no  other  law  of  this 
force  than  the  liberty  of  the  soul;  knows  no  other  law 
than  that  which  comes  from  God — a  law  intelligible  as 
a  just  compensation,  and  that  every  one  obeys  for  its 
justice,  and  not  as  a  gracious  concession,  nor  as  a  social 
contract;  a  law  which  in  order  to  triumph  has  no  need 
of  force,  and  will,  on  the  contrary,  triumph  over  force 
itself.  Hence  the  Master  admonishes :  "  I  say  unto  you, 
Resist  not  evil;  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy 
right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.  And  if  any  man 
will  sue  thee  at  the  law  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him 
have  thy  cloke  also."  2  And  concluding :  "  Judge  not, 
that  ye  be  not  judged."  3 

The  law  and  the  established  institutions  can  have  no 
value  by  the  side  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus ;  and  He  does 
not  teach  to  elude  them,  but  to  estimate  them  at  their 
proper  value.  Questioned  on  the  fiscal  demands  of  Rome, 
His  advice  is  to  satisfy  them.  Is  it  a  question  of  giv- 
ing a  coin  to  Caesar  who  exacts  it?  Let  it  be  given 
unto  him.4  It  is  a  poor  enough  thing* if  the  majesty 
of  an  Emperor  has  to  consist  solely  in  that.  But  never- 
theless the  error  of  making  Jesus  the  upholder  of  under- 
mined thrones  and  tottering  Powers,  and  supposing  a 
parallelism  of  two  authorities,  one  in  correspondence  with 
the  other,  is  not  generally  recognised.  On  the  contrary, 
He  makes  so  great  a  difference,  so  profound  a  separation, 


54          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

between  them,  that  conflict  is  just  as  much  impossible  as 
conciliation.  The  relation  which  Jesus  enjoins  towards 
constituted  authority  is  one  of  neutrality  and  toleration ; 
but  as  to  the  esteem  in  which  He  holds  it,  and  teaches  that 
it  should  be  held,  His  idea  is  merely  negative.5  Tolerat- 
ing force  and  not  rebelling  against  it,  being  neutral 
towards  the  conquests  and  exactions  of  evil,  signify  the 
opposite  of  supporting  it  or  cringing  to  it.  The  way- 
farer who  is  assaulted  and  who  yields  up  his  purse  to  the 
robber,  even  as  the  Hebrew  in  the  Roman  province  pays 
the  tribute  to  Tiberius,  neither  approves  nor  favours  the 
violence  done  him,  while  enduring  it. 

Meanwhile,  if  every  one  had  already  in  the  time  of 
Jesus  followed  His  doctrine  of  indifference  and  neutrality 
towards  existing  institutions,  the  Emperor,  were  he  even 
Tiberius,  would  have  had  no  more  support  from  his 
subjects  and  would  have  been  divested  of  all  his  terrible 
empire.  When  a  government  ceases  to  excite  repulsion 
in  some  or  to  attract  others,  it  has  no  longer  any  reason 
for  existence  nor  power  of  duration.  "  In  this  way," 
observes  one  of  our  best  authors,  "  Jesus  was  forming 
citizens  who  could  never  become  soldiers  nor  magistrates 
nor  courtiers,  nor  subjects  nor  rebels,  and  who  could 
never  have  upheld  a  government  of  this  world."  6  But 
of  what  world  ?  we  ask  the  acute  observer.  Certainly  not 
of  the  Jewish  world,  still  less  of  our  modern  world.  But 
whoever  believes  in  the  perfectibility  of  the  human 
species,  whoever  hopes  with  the  prophet  that  the  time  may 
come  when  swords  shall  be  turned  into  ploughshares  and 
lances  into  sickles,  and,  above  all,  a  true  and  perfect 
Christian  who  trusts  and  follows  entirely  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  cannot  desire  a  different  world  nor  better 
citizens. 

"  And  meanwhile,"  observes  another  no  less  broad  and 
eminent  thinker,  "those  citizens  humbled  themselves  to 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS          55 

become  great,  abased  themselves  to  become  glorious,  they 
gave  themselves  to  the  contemplation  of  death,  common 
to  all  men  as  the  price  of  eternal,  individual  life,  they 
forgot  all  and  everything  to  remember  always  them- 
selves and  their  individuality,  they  sought  self-forgetful- 
ness  by  the  apotheosis  of  self."  7  And  all  this  was  the 
necessary  consequence  of  the  exalted  conception  of  in- 
dividuality held  in  the  doctrine  of  their  Master :  a  reac- 
tion against  the  prevalence  of  the  conception  of  man 
as  a  citizen,  and  a  step  towards  the  integration  of  man, 
the  antithesis  of  the  individual  to  the  almost  impersonal 
collectivity  of  the  State. 

The  Roman  world,  which  placed  before  men  the  most 
exalted  and  coveted  objects  in  life,  seemed  to  be  the  most 
humane  among  empires,  but  it  was  not  so.  To  be  so, 
it  should  have  been  able  to  unite  the  citizen  with  the 
individual,  the  c'wis  romanus  with  the  homo,  and  to 
allow  the  individual  to  assert  himself  by  his  personal 
worth  and  not  as  an  organic  institution  recognised  and 
consecrated.8  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  having  uncon- 
secrated  the  citizen  become  an  institution,  emancipates 
man  born  free  in  his  own  infinite  perfectibility,  and  this 
emancipation  is  worth  all  his  life  as  the  price  of  ransom. 
Having  refused  to  recognise  any  other  power,  and 
admitting  only  the  kingdom  of  God,  He  declares  every 
man  to  be  a  free  citizen  of  this  kingdom  and  proclaims 
its  sovereignty.  Woe  to  him  who  shall  dare  to  attack 
or  obscure  it !  On  this  single  sovereignty  rests  the  vision 
of  a  human  society,  no  longer  upheld  by  law  which  as- 
serts itself  by  means  of  force,  but  by  the  free  obedience 
of  men  to  right — a  society  no  longer  bound  together  by 
juridical  institutions,  but  by  the  reciprocity  of  duty  and 
love.  It  was  in  this  sense  that  I  pointed  out  before  that 
the  society  desired  by  Jesus  is  comparable  not  so  much 
to  the  socialistic  regime,  as  to  a  mild,  sweet,  and  holy 


56          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

anarchy,  taking  this  word  to  mean  simply  the  negation 
of  every  government  and  institution. 

The  victory  of  right,  which  comes  from  God,  belongs 
neither  to  the  solicitous  nor  to  the  cunning  and  violent, 
but  to  the  oppressed,  who  will  see  their  own  right  tri- 
umph. And  this  attitude  of  resignation,  this  expecta- 
tion of  a  triumph  entirely  inward  and  moral,  does  not 
contradict  the  human  theme  of  a  society  which  should 
evolve  itself  to  the  highest  perfection. 

The  iniquity  of  the  world  is  so  great,  its  injustice  so 
profound,  the  conception  of  right  so  artificial  and  con- 
ventional, that  the  oppressed  cannot  succeed  even  if 
they  try  to  make  their  reasons  heard,  and  there  are  not 
a  few  who  are  satisfied  with  the  consciousness  of  right 
or  renounce  voluntarily  any  claim  for  justice  on  account 
of  wrongs  suffered,  especially  if  they  are  animated  by 
superior  sentiments  of  generosity  and  self-denial  or 
bound  by  ties  of  affection,  relationship,  or  friendship. 
"  Are  we  not  accustomed  to  act  thus  among  our  families 
and  friends  ? "  asks  Adolf  Harnack.9  Are  we  not 
taught  not  to  return  evil  for  evil,  insult  for  insult? 
What  family,  what  company  of  friends,  could  exist  if 
every  individual  thought  solely  of  maintaining  his  own 
rights,  and  were  not  taught  to  renounce  them,  even 
before  unjust  aggression?  Now  Jesus  depicts  the 
earthly  kingdom  of  God — society  as  rendered  perfect 
by  His  teaching — as  a  future  universal  family  in  which 
will  be  found  inherent  and  spontaneous  the  sacrifices 
and  transitions  already  possible  and  real,  though  in 
lesser  proportion  in  a  small  family  of  to-day.  But  these 
renunciations  and  compromises,  if  they  do  not  signify 
resistance  to  wrong  from  those  who  suffer,  do  not 
excuse  those  who  are  able  to  employ  the  smallest  force 
to  fight  against  wrong  in  defence  of  their  neighbour 
who  may  be  suffering  from  it.  According  to  the  teach- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          57 

ing  and  example  of  Jesus,  he  who  would  follow  Him,  far 
from  retiring  to  live  alone  in  inactivity  and  self-aban- 
donment, must  take  up  his  cross,  and  choose,  according 
to  his  own  particular  aptitude,  his  position  in  the  fight 
against  the  irreconcilable  enemies  of  the  great  truth 
taught  by  Him — egoism,  injustice,  hypocrisy.  Jesus 
did  not  preach  a  general  renunciation  of  the  struggle 
against  these  enemies — He  did  not  enjoin  flight,  which 
would  leave  them  victorious  and  unconquered;  on  the 
contrary  ^  He  has  imposed  vigilance  to  the  point  of  sacri- 
fice, danger  to  the  point  of  death,  for  their  confusion 
and  annihilation.  His  first  disciples  go  about  announc- 
ing the  good  tidings  like  sheep  among  wolves ;  He  recom- 
mends them  to  be  simple  as  doves,  wise  as  serpents,  but 
He  also  exhorts  them  not  to  fear  those  who  kill  the  body 
but  cannot  kill  the  soul.  It  is  false,  therefore,  that  the 
teaching  of  Christ  disheartens  a  man  ready  to  fight,  and 
that  it  is  contrary  to  vigorous  and  combative  natures. 
Its  Spirit  is,  on  the  contrary,  liberal  and  active,  which 
neither  implies  the  negation  of  the  world  nor  an  inert 
asceticism — unless  for  such  as  are  really  unfit  for  the 
fight — while  from  all  His  other  followers  He  requires 
only  the  renunciation  resulting  from  the  sacrifice  made  in 
defending  the  right  of  others.  In  the  struggle  for  good- 
ness there  is  much-  hidden  though  strenuous  courage, 
which  fights  in  silence  and  darkness  with  a  tenacity  and 
vigour  which  overcome  the  violence  and  fraud  with 
which  the  two-headed  tyranny  of  wrong  is  wont  to  clothe 
itself.  There  are  sacrifices,  obscure,  but  magnanimous, 
which  resist  and  react  against  the  attractive  and  tri- 
umphant arts  of  gold  and  power ;  there  are  victories  un- 
known, but  valiantly  won,  which  receive  no  prize  of  fame 
and  no  greeting  by  sound  of  trumpet.  The  life  of  the 
Spirit,  active  charity,  contented  abnegation,  poverty  sus- 
tained with  dignity,  are  battle-fields  in  which  the  heroes 


58          ,THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

of  virtue  and  sacrifice,  the  heroes  of  the  love  of  God, 
display  the  greatest  boldness,  the  most  indomitable 
energy.10 

And  yet  some  people  have  pointed  to  a  profound 
defect  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  as  viewed  in  relation 
to  political  and  social  questions,  maintaining  it  to  be 
unadaptable  to  civil  life,  because  extraneous,  if  not 
opposed,  to  the  work  and  progress  of  civilisation.  "  But 
although  civil  work  and  progress,"  replied  Adolf  Har- 
nack,  "  are  very  precious  blessings,  and  worthy  of  our 
greatest  endeavours,  they  do  not  represent  the  supreme 
ideal  and  cannot  give  to  the  soul  its  truest  happiness. 
Work  is  a  source  of  happiness ;  and  the  joys  of  work  can 
only  be  acquired  through  hardship  and  obstinate,  pain- 
ful endeavour."  "  In  this  exaltation  of  work,"  continues 
the  authoritative  rationalist,  "  there  is  much  rhetoric 
and  much  hypocrisy.  Human  labour,  as  regards  more 
than  three  parts  of  it,  is  fatigue  that  stupefies.  One  man 
who  knows  what  such  labour  is  tells  how  much  truth  there 
is  in  the  poet's  yearning  for  the  coming  of  night,  when 
head,  feet,  and  hands  rejoice,  for  the  day's  toil  is  over. 
He  knows  that  if  he  had  to  begin  again,  after  the  task 
were  done,  the  instruments  of  work  would  fall  like  a  dead 
weight  on  soul  and  mind ;  he  knows  that  the  labour  which 
is  merely  labour  can  only  result  in  nausea,  as  it  appears 
to  Faust,  whose  soul  asks  compensation  and  cries  '  Let 
us  drink  from  the  river  of  life — from  its  source  '  !  " 

Work  is  a  safety-valve  that  saves  us  from  greater 
evils,  but  it  is  not  in  itself  a  good,  much  less  an  ideal. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  progress  of  civilisation. 
No  one  underrates  its  value,  but  that  which  to-day  is  a 
condition  of  progress,  which  cheers  and  exalts  us,  will 
be  to-morrow  a  vulgar  mechanical  thing  that  will  leave 
us  indifferent.  The  man  who  looks  deeply  into  things 
receives  with  gratitude  the  benefits  of  progress,  but 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  59 

knows  that  his  inner  life,  the  questions  which  occupy 
and  stir  him,  the  fundamental  relations  in  which  he 
lives,  will  in  reality  remain  unchanged,  or  be  changed 
only  superficially.  The  lively  impression  of  novelty 
and  comfort  which  it  brings  us  are  but  of  momentary 
duration.  A  man  of  advancing  years,  with  a  life's  ex- 
perience, who  has  formed  for  himself  an  inner  world, 
receives  almost  no  further  stimulus  from  the  doings  of 
the  external  world,  and  the  progress  of  civilisation;  on 
the  contrary,  the  more  he  is  disposed  to  recognise  that 
the  civilisation  of  his  day  has  risen  to  one  of  its  higher 
grades,  the  more  does  he  perceive  that  he  himself  has 
not  changed  his  place,  and  that  he  needs  those  same 
powers  from  which  his  predecessors  derived  comfort,  the 
moral  forces  of  love  and  faith;  and  he  recognises,  even 
though  he  may  not  say  so,  that  this  is  the  foundation 
j)f  the  truth  announced  by  the  Nazarene.11 

At  any  rate,  was  it  the  problem  of  combative  life, 
which  is  presumed  to  be  discouraged  rather  than  ani- 
mated by  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  which  could  pre-occupy 
the  minds  and  oppose  the  laws  of  His  contemporaries? 
Or  could  it  be  the  problem  of  labour  depreciated  and 
weakened,  or  the  progress  of  civilisation  arrested  and 
opposed  ? 

It  has  already  been  observed  how  obtuse  and  conserva- 
tive was  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  people.  Not  born  to 
industry,  debarred  from  art,  abhorring  pomp,  they  had 
watched  with  sorrow  the  development  of  commerce  and 
the  flow  of  wealth  penetrating  their  land  from  without. 
They  looked  upon  Roman  magnificence  as  a  sin  of  idola- 
try, rather  than  an  act  of  violence ;  they  barely  tolerated 
their  own  law  of  property,  and  only  within  the  strictest 
limitations,  and  even  then  regarded  it  as  more  or  less  sin- 
ful ;  they  regarded  poverty  as  holy  and  meritorious ;  the 
voice  of  their  prophets  was  a  constant  invocation  to  the 


60          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

simplicity  of  the  old  lost  life,  and  almost  all  their  sects, 
however  discordant  among  themselves,  were  united  on 
the  question  of  the  negation  of  the  world  and  the  neces- 
sity of  privation.  Only  one  gleam  in  the  darkness 
opened  an  outlet  for  aspiration  toward  a  mystic  but  in- 
definite and  confused  ideal.  In  the  midst  of  this  people 
the  word  of  Jesus  sounded  quite  other  than  depressing, 
or  as  dulling  the  sense  of  common  needs  and  appeals. 
Solidarity  taught  as  an  active  law  of  the  universal  struct- 
ure inspired  love  as  the  living  flame  of  every  human  rela- 
tion; individuality  raised  to  the  degree  of  divine  sov- 
ereignty, the  struggle  against  evil  commanded  to  the  last 
sacrifice,  selfish  care  for  earthly  things,  unforgivingness, 
private  property  only  allowed  in  the  public  service,  in 
favour  of  one's  neighbour,  the  idolatry  of  the  Caesars 
condemned,  like  every  other  Power,  to  fall  of  itself,  the 
abuse  of  the  weak  condemned  as  an  attack  upon  the 
majesty  of  the  citizen  of  God;  disdain  for  those  who 
have  succumbed  to  sin,  substituted  by  their  redemption 
— the  superhuman  ideal  exalted  and  extended  beyond 
all  limits  of  purity  and  simplicity: — these  chief  items 
in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  were  the  fulfilment,  and  not 
the  abrogation,  of  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  word  of  the 
prophets. 

The  fact  is,  that  Jesus  placed  the  superhuman  ideal, 
which  the  people  of  Israel  conceived  of  as  one  that  was 
nationally  and  peculiarly  their  own,  so  high,  that  they 
saw  that  something  escaped  them  which  yet  intimately 
belonged  to  them,  that  their  God  was  being  taken  from 
them.  That  small  chink,  which  in  the  darkness  of  dull 
souls  opened  a  way  to  the  popular  ideal  of  Palestine,  was 
so  burst  open  and  expanded  by  Jesus,  that  it  emitted 
rays  of  most  vivid  light — with  waves  of  warm  and  fer- 
tilising air,  the  forerunners  of  great  but  beneficent 
storms. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          61 

All  this  disturbed  the  traditions  and  intellectual  habits, 
if  not  the  equilibrium  of  the  patriotic  forces  of  a  people 
profoundly  unlearned  and  nationalist.  The  spirit  and 
interests  of  conservation,  and  naught  else,  were  attacked 
by  the  teaching  of  Jesus — but  reflexively,  not  by  what 
His  doctrine  took  away  from  the  law  and  institutions, 
but  by  all  that  it  implied  that  was  great,  high,  and  ex- 
alted beyond  the  law  and  institutions.  The  integrity 
of  the  law,  regarded  in  its  letter  and  immediate  applica- 
tion, received  no  derogation,  nor  was  the  security  of 
existing  institutions  in  any  way  threatened,  still  less  was 
there  any  question  of  personal  jealousy  of  the  political 
power.  Concerning  that  jealousy,  it  is  sufficient  for  the 
present  to  point  out  (we  shall  return  to  the  matter 
later  on)  that  the  whole  conduct  of  Jesus  towards  estab- 
lished Powers  was  one  of  rejection  and  not  of  competi- 
tion. 

When  they  desire  to  make  Him  king,  He  escapes  from 
the  multitude ;  when  at  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  He  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  greatest  popular  enthusiasm,  He  is  solic- 
itous to  represent  the  fact  to  be  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
and  to  deprive  it  of  any  significance  as  a  public  demon- 
stration; and  when  before  His  judges  He  is  questioned 
upon  the  capital  charge,  He  repeats  once  more  that  His 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 

"  Jesus  of  Nazareth  King  of  the  Jews  "  was  the  de- 
scription given  of  a  crime  that  Jesus  had  not  even  con- 
ceived, still  less  committed ;  it  was  an  evident  and  vulgar 
irony. 


62          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xx.  25-7. 

2  S.  Matthew  v.  39,  40. 

3  S.  Matthew  vii.  1. 

4  S.  Luke  xx.  22,  et  seq. 

5  Harnack,  L'essenza  del  Crist,  conf.  vi. 

6  Ellero,  La  questione  sociale,  Bologna,  1877,  cap.  1. 

7  Bovio,  Corso  di  stienza  del  diritto,  lez.  vi.    Cf.  Disegno  d*  una 
storia  del  diritto  in  Italia. 

8  Bovio,  Corso  di  scienza,  I.e. 

9  L'essenza  del  Crist,  conf.  vi. 

10U.  Cosmo,  in  an  honestly  written  little  book  entitled  Gli 
eroi  delV  amor  di  Dio,  treats  of  the  principal  hero,  whom  he 
regards  as  S.  Francis  (Verona,  Drucker,  1896).  V.  Hugo  (Les 
Miserables,  liv.  iv.)  justly  raises  to  the  rank  of  heroes  all  the  poor 
wretches  who  victoriously  struggle  against  the  trials  of  their 
miserable  lot. 

11  L'ess.  del  Crist,  conf.  vii.  Harnack  entertained  a  personal 
and  perhaps  traditional  preference  for  Protestantism  as  com- 
pared with  Catholicism,  and  this  may  be  traced  in  some  of  the 
profound  thoughts  which  he  has  given  to  the  world.  His  author- 
ity, however,  is  singularly  great  in  matters  into  which  this  leaning 
does  not  enter,  and  is  indeed  such  that  a  better  cannot  be  recalled, 
although  lately  some  adversaries,  fighting  with  disloyal  weapons, 
have  opposed  him  not  as  "an  honourable  adversary  with  whom 
one  may  differ  upon  the  more  or  less,"  but  as  an  author  "of 
historical  falsehoods  and  of  puerile  dialectic "  (CivUta  Cattolicaf 
an.  liv.  vol.  ix.  pp.  515,  523).  See,  on  the  other  hand,  the  same 
Catholic  critic  regarding  Harnack:  Le  vie  delta  fede,  Rome, 
1903,  p.  43;  Cuttura  sociale,  December  16,  1902,  p.  380;  Alfr. 
Loisy,  L'Evangtte  et  I'Eylise,  Paris,  1903. 


CHAPTER   VI 

Propaganda  and  Associations — No  one  a  Prophet  in  his  own 
Country — At  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  and  Gennesaret — The 
Twelve  Apostles — Men  and  Women  following  Him — The 
Familiarity  and  Benignity  of  Jesus  at  Popular  Festivals — 
Hypocrites  scandalised — Originality  and  Charm  of  His  Words 
— His  Style — His  Invectives  against  Hypocrisy,  Instrument  of 
Fraud  and  Cause  of  Disunion — Authoritative  Admirers — 
First  Councils  Adverse  to  Impunity — The  Amours  of  Antipater 
and  Herodias  hasten  the  Death  of  the  Baptist — The  Tetrarch 
wishes  to  see  Jesus. 

HERE  it  becomes  necessary  to  retrace  the  course  of  events 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  in  relation  to  the  susceptibilities  of 
the  State,  which  will  one  day  have  a  furious  awakening 
and  descend  in  its  wrath  upon  His  innocent  head,  with 
the  cunning  and  fell  purpose  of  conservative  passion. 
At  Nazareth,  where  the  Master  announced  the  good  tid- 
ings, He  is  met  with  incredulity  and  wonder.  "  Is  He 
not,"  asked  the  Nazarenes,  "  that  carpenter,  the  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know?  "  l 
those  not  of  Nazareth  adding :  "  Can  there  be  any  good 
thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?  "  2  His  relations  think  He 
is  beside  Himself.3  Galilee  was  in  every  respect  less  arid 
and  more  fertile  than  Judaea;  the  green  luxuriant  land- 
scape combined  extreme  sweetness  with  a  profound 
melancholy.  The  new  ideas  of  the  zealots  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  either  did  not  penetrate  so  far  or  did  not 
raise  the  bitter,  uncontrollable  passions  that  raged  in 
Judaea,  and  above  all  in  Jerusalem.  Rabbis,  reformers, 

63 


64          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  sectaries  were  not  wanting  here,  but  the  Pharisees, 
who  elsewhere  formed  the  strongest  and  most  hateful 
sect,  were  in  the  minority.  Hence  the  Master  of  Naza- 
reth could  not  meet  with  anything  worse  than  incredulity 
and  wonder. 

But  this  does  not  dishearten  Him.  He  thinks  and 
says  that  no  one  is  a  prophet  in  his  own  country,4  and 
goes  to  Capernaum,  a  city  of  Galilee  near  the  lake  of 
Gennesaret.  And  as  at  Nazareth  on  the  mount,5  so  at 
Capernaum  in  the  synagogue  6  and  at  Gennesaret  on  the 
lake,7  He  carries  out  His  mission.  Meanwhile  to  a  daily 
and  active  propaganda  8  is  added  a  vast  spontaneous 
concourse ;  9  propaganda  and  concourse :  the  two  eternal 
terms  of  definition  for  the  crime  of  treason  to  the  State. 

Jesus  is  no  longer  alone.  Some  disciples  of  humble 
condition  gather  around  Him  in  fraternal  intercourse, 
twelve  of  whom  became  his  apostles  or  missionaries  later 
on.  The  twelve  are  mostly  fishermen  from  the  lake  of 
Gennesaret ;  the  most  cultured  among  them  being  a  rev- 
enue official  named  Matthew.10  The  disciple  whose 
energy  confers  upon  him  most  authority  among  his 
brethren  is  Simon  Peter,  from  Bethsaida ;  Judas  Iscariot 
acts  as  treasurer  for  them  all.  The  youngest  and  best 
beloved  of  the  Master  is  John,  who  on  every  occasion, 
at  the  Supper,  the  Crucifixion,  at  the  Sepulchre,  occu- 
pies the  Irst  place.11  One  of  the  twelve  will  betray  Him. 

The  women  12  join  the  men,  providing  for  the  support 
of  the  party :  Mary,  from  the  little  town  of  Magdala— 
hence  !alled  Magdalena ;  Salome,  mother  of  the  disciples 
James  and  John ;  Joanna,  wife  of  Chuza,  one  of  Herod's 
stewards;  and  not  a  few  others  constantly  follow  the 
Nazarene,  and  will  accompany  Him  one  day  to  the  foot 
of  the  cross. 

He  lived  in  the  freest  intimacy  with  His  followers,  and 
almost  always  in  the  open  air ;  so  much  so  that  He  used 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          65 

to  say :  "  The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air 
have  nests;  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay 
His  head."  13 

Sometimes  he  did  not  disdain  the  hospitality  of  the 
humblest  and  of  the  worst,  for  which  he  was  bitterly 
reproached  by  many.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees  said 
unto  Him :  "  Why  do  the  disciples  of  John  fast  often 
and  make  prayers,  and  likewise  the  Pharisees,  but  thine 
eat  and  drink  with  publicans  and  sinners."  14  And  the 
Master  replied :  "  Whereunto  shall  I  liken  the  men  of 
this  generation?  and  to  what  are  they  like?  For  John 
the  Baptist  came  neither  eating  bread  nor  drinking  wine ; 
and  ye  say,  He  hath  a  devil.  The  Son  of  Man  is  come 
eating  and  drinking;  and  ye  say,  Behold  a  gluttonous 
man,  and  a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sin- 
ners !  "  15  And  He  added,  with  the  most  inspired  up- 
lifting of  the  disinherited  and  the  most  crushing  morti- 
fication of  the  hypocrites :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That 
the  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  before  you."  16 

He  loved  the  fields,  the  sea,  and  children,  and  these 
happy  images  figured  brightly  and  spontaneously  in  His 
conversation,  which  overflowed  with  the  love  and  gentle- 
ness that  filled  His  soul.  His  style,  such  as  we  may 
gather  it  to  have  been  from  the  text  of  the  Gospels, 
was  not  Greek  in  character,  but  rather  approached  the 
manner  of  the  Hebrew  parabolist,  and  particularly  the 
phrasing  of  contemporary  Jewish  doctors,  as  we  find 
it  in  the  Pirke  Abothe  and  in  the  Talmud;  in  fact,  He 
excelled  chiefly  in  parable.  In  developing  His  views  in 
conversation,  He  was  sparing  of  words  and  proceeded  by 
surate,  but  for  the  originality  and  efficacy  of  His  words, 
Judaism  had  afforded  Him  no  model.17  He  preached  as 
one  having  authority,  not  like  the  scribes ;  His  words 
were  words  of  life,  seeds  which  germinated  and  produced 


66          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

fruit;  these  were  the  new,  original,  unequalled,  sublime 
elements  of  His  teaching.  By  the  charm  of  His  thought 
and  word,  Jesus  conducts  His  propaganda  through  Gali- 
lee amid  the  ever-growing  favour  of  His  hearers.  Men 
fallen  to  the  depths  of  social  degradation,  who  in  the 
tangled  words  of  a  hundred  sects  that  flourished  amongst 
them  had  not  found  the  way  of  salvation,  were  attracted 
by  a  penetrating  glance  from  Him,  by  one  suggestive 
word,  and  became  His  faithful,  inseparable  followers. 
Weak  and  guilty  women,  drawn  by  His  purity,  feel  in 
Him  the  regenerating  contact  of  virtue,  and  follow  Him 
with  the  most  intense  fervour;  grief-stricken  mothers, 
intrepid  in  their  maternal  affection,  bring  their  children 
that  He  may  touch  them,  strengthen  them,  or  heal  them. 
Hence,  in  certain  respects  Renan  was  right  in  concluding 
that  the  propaganda  and  the  following  of  Jesus  was  a 
movement  started  by  women  and  children.174 

Just  because  the  movement  was  such  in  part,  and 
especially  in  the  beginning,  the  fact  of  the  large  follow- 
ing could  not  have  occasioned  the  State  more  uneasiness 
with  regard  to  the  Master  of  Nazareth  than  that  caused 
by  His  propaganda. 

Sometimes  His  words  are  vehement  and  contumelious ; 
and  then  He  made  enemies;  but  these  were  only  the 
Pharisees  and  other  hypocrites,  to  whom  alone  Jesus, 
lucid  and  polished  speaker,  addressed  Himself  with 
vehemence  and  invective.  The  good  tidings  announced 
by  Him  were  the  establishment  of  truth  on  earth  and 
the  liberation  of  man  from  all  falsehood.  This  brings 
the  worst  shame  and  the  greatest  harm  to  humanity — 
and  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  it  is  a  practical 
contradiction  to  the  infinite  perfection  of  the  soul,  to 
brotherhood  itself,  and  universal  solidarity.  In  fact, 
falsehood  creates  disunion,  deceit,  treachery — the  atti- 
tude of  man,  who  is  a  fox  towards  man  when  the  latter 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          67 

is  not  a  wolf,  according  to  the  latest  form  of  evolution  of 
the  animal  struggle  for  existence,  in  which  fraud  at 
last  takes  the  place  of  violence.  Thus  the  highest  prin- 
ciple of  social  justice,  such  as  the  conception  of  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  becomes  idle,  if  the  life  of  society, 
turning  upon  its  fixed  pivot  in  an  inverted  order,  dis- 
avows at  every  moment  the  political  and  moral  principles 
on  which  it  is  founded ;  if  it  is  inclined  to  contradict  in 
its  customs  its  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  is  in  the 
habit  of  simulating  faith  in  what  it  does  not  believe,  of 
esteeming  what  it  does  not  esteem,  and  of  doing  and 
tolerating  things  which  admit  neither  of  toleration  nor 
compromise.  If  it  were  not  for  hypocrisy,  which  means 
playing  a  part,  men  would  not  much  longer,  nor  with 
such  general  readiness,  act  the  part  which  suits  their 
nature  and  their  place  in  the  vulgar  comedy  of  life, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  the  falsest  and  most  artificial 
conventionality,  and  sustained  by  the  double  force  of 
conventional  and  legal  make-believe.  Hypocrisy  is 
sometimes  religious,  consisting  in  the  monstrous  union 
of  sanctity  of  form  with  impious  acts ;  sometimes  legal, 
when  it  takes  advantage  of  the  unexceptional  and 
obsequious  observance  of  laws  and  customs,  to  gain 
an  easy  and  mendacious  justification  in  that  profound 
struggle  which  goes  on  in  every  man's  heart  between 
conscience  and  life. 

The  Pharisees,  contemporaries  of  Jesus,  were  legal 
hypocrites,  because  they  masked  iniquity  and  perfidy 
under  the  most  pedantic  and  astute  observance  of  the 
law;  and  to  them  were  addressed  the  only  words  of 
invective  and  malediction  which  Jesus  ever  uttered. 

Sometimes  his  contempt  took  no  other  form  than 
that  of  impetuous  invective :  "  Woe  unto  you,  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  devour  widows' 
houses,  and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayer:  therefore 


68          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ye  shall  receive  the  greater  damnation.  Woe  unto  you 
ye  blind  guides,  which  say,  Whosoever  shall  swear  by 
the  temple,  it  is  nothing;  but  whosoever  shall  swear  by 
the  gold  of  the  temple,  he  is  a  debtor !  Woe  unto  you 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites!  for  ye  pay  tithe  of 
mint  and  anise  and  cummin,  and  have  left  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and  faith.  .  .  . 
Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape 
the  judgment  of  hell?  .  .  .  That  upon  you  may  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  that  hath  been  shed  upon  the 
earth,  from  the  blood  of  righteous  Abel  even  unto  the 
blood  of  Zacharias  son  of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew 
between  the  temple  and  the  altar." 

Sometimes  the  attack  was  indirect,  because  he  con- 
fined Himself  to  urging  them  to  act  differently  from 
the  hypocrites :  "  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms 
before  men,  to  be  seen  of  them.  Therefore  when  thou 
doest  thine  alms,  sound  not  a  trumpet  before  thee,  as 
the  hypocrites  do  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  streets, 
that  they  may  have  glory  of  men.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  They  have  their  reward.  But  when  thou  doest  alms, 
let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy  right  hand  doeth. 
That  thine  alms  may  be  in  secret :  and  Thy  Father  which 
seeth  in  secret  shall  reward  thee  openly."  19 

And  again,  and  how  humanly ! — "  Moreover,  when  ye 
fast,  be  not,  as  the  hypocrites,  of  a  sad  countenance :  for 
they  disfigure  their  faces,  that  they  may  appear  unto 
men  to  fast.  But  thou,  when  thou  fastest,  anoint  thine 
head,  and  wash  thy  face."  20 

And  again,  and  divinely :  "  Therefore  if  thou  bring 
thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy 
brother  hath  ought  against  thee;  leave  there  thy  gift 
before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way;  first  be  reconciled  to 
thy  brother,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift."  21  A 
wonderful  parable  shows  his  acute,  mordant  thought 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          69 

concerning  the  sincerity  and  purity  of  the  soul  com- 
pared with  and  in  condemnation  of  conventional  men- 
dacious forms :  "  Two  men  went  up  into  the  temple  to 
pray ;  the  one  a  Pharisee,  and  the  other  a  publican.  The 
Pharisee  stood  and  prayed  thus  with  himself,  O  God, 
I  thank  thee,  that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are,  extor- 
tioners, unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as  this  publican. 
I  fast  twice  in  the  week,  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  pos- 
sess. And  the  publican,  standing  afar  off  would  not 
so  much  as  lift  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  but  smote  his 
breast,  saying,  O  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner.  I  tell 
you,  this  man  went  down  into  his  house  justified  rather 
than  the  other;  because  every  one  that  exalteth  himself 
shall  be  abased,  and  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be 
exalted."  22 

And  even  in  external  conduct  and  in  forms  of  speech 
Jesus  condemns  artifices,  and  urges  simplicity  and  frank- 
ness. "  Neither  shalt  thou  swear  by  thy  head,  because 
thou  canst  not  make  one  hair  white  or  black.  But 
let  your  communication  be,  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay:  for 
whatsoever  is  more  than  these  cometh  of  evil."  23  Some- 
times His  irony  does  not  spare  the  wicked;  and  His 
subtle  raillery,  His  barbed  shafts,  go  straight  to  the 
heart,  where  they  remain  planted  as  eternal  stigmata 
in  the  wound.  "  This  shirt  of  Nessus,"  says  Renan, 
"  which  for  so  many  centuries  the  Hebrew  has  trailed 
after  him  in  rags,  was  woven  by  Jesus  with  divine 
art."  Masterpieces  of  scorn,  His  darts  cut  fiery  lines  in 
the  flesh  of  the  hypocrites  and  the  false  devotees;  in- 
comparable darts  worthy  of  a  Son  of  God!  Socrates 
and  Moliere  only  graze  the  skin ;  the  fiery  reproof  of 
Jesus  pierces  to  the  marrow  of  the  bones.24  But  it  was 
written  that  at  the  end  of  His  mission  He  should  pay 
with  His  life  for  the  triumph  of  the  truth.  The  Phari- 
sees, the  scribes,  the  false  devotees,  were  the  tenacious 


70          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

custodians  of  orthodox  Judaism  and  personified  the 
tradition,  authority,  and  fortune  of  the  temple,  which 
meant  also  the  fortune  of  the  nation.  Hence  this  private 
and  not  public  hatred,  but  none  the  less  terrible  and 
powerful,  which  could  only  be  quenched  in  blood. 

Almost  as  if  to  call  down  more  speedily  this  vengeance 
upon  His  head,  we  have  that  sudden  outburst  of  indigna- 
tion against  the  desecrating  traffickers  in  the  temple 
which  He  will  be  charged  with  when  brought  before  His 
judges,  when  also  the  subversive  words  which  He  uttered 
on  that  occasion  will  be  especially  brought  up  against 
Him.  Meanwhile,  however,  He  is  winning  adherents  and 
followers  in  the  holy  city  itself.  Nicodemus,  a  rich 
Pharisee,  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin  and  an  esteemed 
citizen  of  Jerusalem,  becomes  His  friend.25  But  Jesus 
does  not  trust  too  much  to  this  new  favour,  and  prepares 
to  return  to  Galilee,  passing  through  Samaria.26  On 
returning  to  Jerusalem  He  hears  of  two  events  which 
imperil  the  safety  of  His  mission.27  In  April  of  the  year 
29  the  Baptist  had  been  put  to  death  by  order  of  Anti- 
pater,  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  called  Herod  himself, 
King  of  Perea  and  Galilee ;  and  shortly  after  there  is  a 
rumour  that  the  tetrarch  wishes  to  see  Jesus. 

This  little  Herod,  corrupt  and  imbecile,  being  deter- 
mined to  remove  the  Baptist,  added  to  an  easily  alleged 
reason  of  State  an  entirely  personal  question.  Blinded 
by  passion  for  Herodias,  his  sister-in-law,  he  had  been 
drawn  into  seducing  and  then  marrying  her  after  re- 
pudiating his  wife,  Herodias  being  still  bound  to  her  own 
first  husband.  The  austere  censor  from  the  desert  echoed 
the  universal  indignation  felt  against  this  iniquitous 
marriage ;  but  for  his  open  and  unsparing  rebuke  he  was 
arrested  and  shut  up  in  the  fortress  of  Machero. 

Perhaps  Antipater  did  not  desire  his  death,  inasmuch 
as  his  imprisonment  lasted  six  months ;  and  during  that 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  71 

time  the  Baptist  frequently  corresponded  from  the  depths 
of  his  prison  with  his  followers,  and  perhaps  also  with 
those  of  Jesus.28  But  Herodias  could  only  be  satisfied 
by  his  blood,  and  in  this  horrible  vengeance  she  made 
Salome  (her  daughter  by  her  first  marriage)  her  accom- 
plice. One  day,  at  a  celebration  of  the  birthday  of  this 
beautiful  but  perverse  girl,  the  latter  executed  a  char- 
acteristic dance  after  supper,  which  so  fascinated  Anti- 
pater,  who  was  perhaps  already  overcome  by  wine,  that 
he  asked  her  what  she  desired.  The  girl,  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  her  mother,  unhesitatingly  asked  for  the  head  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Soon  after  one  of  the  guards  brought 
on  a  salver  the  head  of  the  prisoner,  and  handed  it  to  the 
girl,  who  delivered  it  to  her  mother.29 

The  story  is  not  very  original,  as  the  figure  of 
Herodias,  who  desires  the  death  of  John,  is  modelled 
on  that  of  Jezebel,  who  desired  the  death  of  Elias  and 
of  Naboth.  The  scene  of  the  seduction  is  taken  from 
the  story  of  Esther.  The  tetrarch  Antipater  makes  to 
the  daughter  of  Herodias  the  same  offer  which  King 
Ahasuerus  made  to  Esther,30  but  still,  all  this  does  not 
prove  that  the  story  was  invented.  Tradition,  which 
creates  a  likely  retribution  in  default  of  a  proven  one, 
tells  us  that  one  day  while  Salome  was  crossing  a  frozen 
lake  she  sank  into  the  water  up  to  her  neck,  when  the 
sharp  edges  of  the  broken  ice  cut  through  her  throat.31 

Whatever  the  cause,  the  death  of  John  caused  among 
the  people  so  uneasy  and  painful  an  impression,  that 
the  defeat  of  Antipater  in  the  war  against  the  Arabs 
was  counted  as  a  just  retribution  for  his  crime.  Jesus 
had  no  illusions  regarding  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
murder  of  the  Baptist  nor  as  to  the  faction  which  had 
brought  it  about.  On  the  contrary,  he  instinctively 
felt  that  this  party  would  also  turn  against  Himself, 
as  continuing  the  work  of  the  martyr  who  had  come  to 


72          THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

prepare  the  way  for  Him.  The  tetrarch  and  his  court 
wondered  who  Jesus  could  be.  They  who  remembered 
the  prophecy  of  Malachias  said :  "  It  is  Elias  " ;  those 
who  recalled  the  words  of  Moses  said :  "  He  is  a  proph- 
et " ;  the  more  advanced  said :  "  He  is  a  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah."  "  But  I  have  had  John  beheaded,"  said 
Antipater.  "  Who  can  this  man  be  of  whom  I  hear  so 
much."  And  he  sought  to  see  Him.32  But  he  will  not 
see  Him  until  the  day  of  His  condemnation,  which  even 
to  him  will  appear  unjust. 


NOTES 

1  S.  Mark  vi.  3;  S.  John  vi.  42. 

2  S.  John  i.  46;  in  fact,  the  phrase  is  attributed  to  Nathanael, 
who  was  of  Cana,  when  he  came  from  under  the  fig-tree  to  meet 
Jesus. 

3  S.  Mark  iii.  21;  cf.  S.  John  vii.  3-5. 

4  S.  Luke  iv.  24;  S.  Mark  vi.  4. 

6  Mountain  unnamed  from  which  Jesus  delivered  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.     S.  Matthew  v.  1  et  seq. ;  S.  Luke  vi.  20. 

6S.  Mark  i.  21  el  seq.;  S.  Luke  iv.  16.  Every  Hebrew  city 
had  a  synagogue  or  meeting-place  formed  of  one  rectangular 
hall  or  chamber  with  a  portico  usually  of  Greek  architectural 
style.  The  remains  of  some  are  still  to  be  seen  at  Orbid  (Arbela) , 
Meiron,  Gisch,  and  in  other  towns  of  Palestine.  Cf.  Mischna, 
Megilla,  iii.  1.  Renan  says  that  the  synagogues  were  little 
republics  where  honours,  etc.,  were  conferred:  Vie,  ch.  viii. 

7  S.  Luke  v.  1. 

8  S.  Matthew  iv.  17,  18,  23,  ix.  35;  S.  Mark  i.  39. 

9  S.  Matthew  x.  1  et  seq.',  S.  Mark  iii.  13;  S.  Luke  vi.  12  et  seq.; 
S.  John  vi.  1  et  seq. 

10  S.  Matthew  was  a  revenue  officer  and  not  a  publican.     Those 
who  at  Rome  were  called  publicans  (Tacitus,  Ann.  iv.  6 ;  Cicero, 
De  provinc.  consul.  5)  were  farmers-general  of  the  taxes,  and  at 
most  were  knights.     S.  Matthew  was  a  revenue  officer — one  of 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          73 

those  who  collect  the  taxes:  a  vile  and  even  sacrilegious  office 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews,  since  the  tax  was  the  sign  of  their  vassalage, 
and  paying  it  constituted  an  act  of  Paganism. 

11  The  same  Evangelist  names  them  in  the  following  order: 
Simon  Peter  and  Andrew  his  brother  (Eusebius,  H.E.  vol.  iii.; 
James  and  John,  sons  of  Zebedee — called  from  their  vehemence 
Sons  of  Thunder  (S.  Mark  i.  20;  S.  Luke  v.  10,  viii.  3;  S.  John 
xix.  27);    Philip;    Nathanael — afterwards  called  Bartholomew; 
Thomas  or  Didimus;  Matthew  or  Levi,  son  of  Alpheus  (Gospel 
of  the  Ebonim  in  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Hosr.  xxx.  13) ;  James,  son  of 
Alpheus  and  cousin  of  Jesus;   Lebbeus  or  Thaddeus,  who  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  party  of  Judah  the  Colonite  (Epiphanius, 
Adv.  Hcer.  xxx.  13) ;  Simon  or  Zelotes,  also  called  the  Canaanite, 
who  also  belonged  to  the  party  of  the  Colonites  (Epiphanius, 
ibid.);  and  Judas  Iscariot. 

12  S.  Luke  viii.  1-3. 

13  S.  Matthew  viii.  20. 

14  St.  Matthew  ix.  11  et  seq.\   S.  Mark  ii.  18  et  seq.\   S.  Luke 
v.  33  et  seq.     Rabbi  Benamozegh  explains  the  disdain  expressed 
by  the  Pharisees  concerning  the  popular  festivals,   at  which 
Jesus  used  to  be  present,  by  the  fact  that  they  were  extremely 
particular  as  to  whom  they  sat  next  at  table,  and  expected  that 
their  own  attendance  should  be  regarded  as  a  very  high  honour 
(Storia  degli  Essini,  Florence,  Le  Monnier,  1865,  p.  240,  and  p. 
244  in  note). 

15  S.  Luke  vii.  31-4. 

16  S.  Matthew  xxi.  31. 

17  Renan,  Vie,  ch.  v. 

I7a  y^  cn  xj4  Renan,  in  this  passage,  giving  free  rein  to  his 
poetic  enthusiasm,  believes  that  the  charm  exercised  by  the 
personal  beauty  of  Jesus  had  much  to  do  with  the  success  of  His 
propaganda,  but  here  also  the  romance  rests  upon  a  purely 
theoretical  basis,  and  is  intended  to  counteract  another  tradition 
of  the  personal  ugliness  of  Jesus — also  resting  upon  nothing  but 
a  theory  according  to  which  this  ill-favouredness,  aesthetically 
speaking,  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  true  Messianic  sign.  See  Justin, 
Dial,  cum  Tryph.  85,  88,  100  ;  cf.  Isaiah  i.,  iii.  2.  The  sup- 
posed beauty  of  face  and  form  is  thought  to  be  accredited  by  the 


74          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

portrait  attributed  to  Lentulus,  the  ill-favouredness  by  the  bare 
word  of  Tertullian,  Alexandrinus,  Origen,  S.  Clement,  S.  Augus- 
tine, and  others.  It  may  be  well  imagined  that  there  has  appeared 
since  the  invention  of  printing,  not  one  book  only,  but  a  small 
library  treating  of  this  argument.  Cf.  e.g.  Pijart,  De  singulari 
Christi  Jesu  D.N.  Salvatoris  pulchritudine,  and  Lami,  De  erudi- 
tione  Apostolorum,  Florence,  1766,  p.  114.  For  the  history  of 
the  conventional  pictures  of  Jesus,  cf.  Lipsius,  Christusbilder, 
Berlin,  1897.  In  the  catacombs  of  Rome,  in  which  symbolism 
and  typical  conventionalism  dominate,  Jesus  preferably  figures  as 
the  Pastor  bonus,  a  symbol  that  came  from  pre-Christian  literature 
(Psalms  xxiii.  1-3;  Isaiah  xl.  11;  Ezekiel  xxxiv.  23)  into  the 
New  Testament  (S.  Matthew  ix.  36;  S.  John  i.  29,  36,  x.  14-19; 
Hebrews  xiii.  20).  Besides  many  pictures,  there  have  been 
discovered  in  the  subsoil  of  the  catacombs  five  statues  representing 
the  same  pastoral  symbol.  Allied  to  this  symbol  of  the  Good 
Shepherd  is  that  of  the  Agnus  Dei,  in  memory  of  Jesus  who  sacri- 
ficed Himself  pro  ovibus  suis.  Another  symbol  is  that  of  Orpheus, 
who  draws  all  things  unto  himself  (omnia  traham  ad  me)  by  the 
power  of  his  teaching  and  example,  a  faithful  translation  of  the 
mythological  symbol  into  an  evangelical  one.  Another  symbolic 
figuration  is  that  of  the  Dolphin  swallowing  another  fish,  this 
being  intended  to  represent  Christ  overcoming  the  Demon,  the 
seducer  of  the  world  (Ap.  xii.  9).  Cf.  Labanca,  G.  C.  nette 
catacombe  di  Roma  in  the  Rivista  dy  Italia,  Dec.  1902.  For  the 
immense  and  interesting  argument  regarding  Jesus  in  art,  cf. 
e.g.  Hoppenot,  Le  Crucifix  dans  Vhistoire  et  dans  I'art,  dans  Vame 
des  saints  et  dans  noire  vie,  Paris,  Desclee,  1903,  3rd  ed. 

The  fantasy  of  details  concerning  the  physical  personality  of 
Jesus  has  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  measuring  his  body. 
The  fact  is  historical,  and  its  origin  is  simple  enough.  It  was 
ordained  by  the  Jewish  law  that  the  standards  of  weights  and 
measures  should  be  preserved  in  the  sanctuary  (Leviticus  xix. 
35,  36),  and  that  every  family  should  have  copies  of  them  (Deuter- 
onomy xxv.  13-15).  The  Emperor  Constantine  ordained  that 
the  cubit  standard  of  the  hydrometer  by  which  the  height  of  the 
Nile  water  was  measured  should  be  transferred  from  the  Pagan 
temple  of  Serapium  to  the  Christian  Churf  i  (Cassiodori,  Opera 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS          75 

omnia,  t.  i.  pp.  215,  6).  Justinian  supported  the  biblical  tradi- 
tion, and  ordered  the  clergy  to  be  charged  with  the  preservation 
of  the  weights  and  measures  (Novell,  cxxviii.  cap.  xv.),  and  this 
system  was  maintained  in  Italy  until  the  time  of  the  Republics 
(Muratori,  Antiquitates  Italics,  vol.  ii.  p.  87.)  Now  the  ecclesias- 
tics in  their  choice  of  standards  were  guided  by  religious  ideas, 
and  among  these  was  the  idea  of  the  body  of  Christ.  How  they 
could  conceive  the  measure  of  it,  I  do  not  know.  Probably  they 
had  as  models  the  oldest  and  most  celebrated  pictures  of  Christ, 
such,  for  example,  as  that  in  the  Church  of  S.  Saviour,  in  one  of 
the  Imperial  palaces  at  Constantinople,  and  at  a  later  epoch  the 
picture  of  the  Santa  Sindone  in  the  Royal  Chapel  at  Turin — or 
perhaps  it  was  desired  to  create  an  analogy  with  the  Palestine 
cubit,  and  that,  preferring  a  triune  number,  the  stature  of  Jesus 
was  fixed  at  three  Palestine  cubits — equivalent  to  1  •  6644  metres. 
Several  of  our  Florence  codices  treat  of  the  stature  of  Jesus  and 
give  the  figure  of  it.  The  Riccardi  codex  sec.  xiv.  (No.  1294, 
c.  103)  gives  1-744  metres;  another  Riccardi  codex  sec.  xv. 
(No.  1763  c.  56)  1-60  metres;  a  Laurentian  codex  of  the  first 
half  of  the  fourteenth  century  three  Florentine  braccia,  or  about 
three  times  0  •  584  metres.  And  so  greatly  has  the  application  of 
these  imaginative  details  as  regards  the  stature  of  Christ  been 
abused,  that  various  prayers  entitled  "the  stature  of  Christ" 
have  been  composed — some  against  the  plague,  and  others  against 
other  calamities.  From  the  catalogue  of  books  published  by  the 
famous  Ripoli  press  of  Florence  between  the  years  1477  and  1482 
it  is  found  that  many  prayers  were  printed  under  this  title.  Cf . 
Giorn.  stor.  della  let.  it.  vol.  xx,  fasc.  60,  an.  1892;  Uzielli,  Orazione 
della  misura  di  G.  C.  Florence,  1902;  ibid.  Misure  lineali 
medicevali,  etc.,  Florence,  1899.  Judgment  in  fantastic  details 
has  also  been  passed  upon  the  final  scene  of  the  great  drama  of 
Jesus,  and  this  has  gone  so  far  as  to  determine  the  distances  to 
the  place  of  execution.  One  anonymous  traveller  ends  the  rela- 
tion of  his  journey  in  the  Holy  Land  as  follows : — 

"Let  it  be  noted  by  those  who  make  the  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy 
Land  from  beyond  sea,  that  from  the  Sepulchre  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  to  Mount  Calvary  where  He  was  nailed  to  the  Cross,  is 
fifty  paces;  and  from  the  Sepulchre  to  the  spot  which  He  said 


76          THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

was  the  centre  of  the  world  is  twenty-five  paces.  From  the 
Sepulchre  to  the  column  to  which  He  was  bound,  and  where  He 
was  scourged,  it  is  fifty-five  paces;  and  from  the  Sepulchre  to 
His  prison  it  is  fifty  paces;  and  from  the  column  where  He 
was  scourged  to  the  place  where  was  found  the  other  cross  it 
is  sixty-five  paces;  and  from  the  Sepulchre  to  the  place  where  He 
said  the  Lord's  Prayer  it  is  thirty  paces;  and  from  Jerusalem  to 
S.  Mary  of  Bethlehem  it  is  six  miles,  where  Christ  was  born;  and 
from  Jerusalem  to  the  River  Jordan  it  is  thirty  miles;  and  from 
Jerusalem  to  Mount  Olivet  it  is  two  thousand  paces;  and  from 
the  River  Jordan  to  the  place  where  Christ  made  Lent  it  is  four 
miles;  and  from  the  river  towards  the  east  is  the  promised  land. 
God  lead  us  there  to  salvation.  Amen."  Cf.  Viaggi  di  Leo- 
nardo Frescobaldi  e  attri  in  Terra  santa  del  Secolo,  xv.  Florence, 
Barbera,  1862,  pp.  118,  143,  449,  450.  And  there  are  not  a  few 
manuals  and  guides  which  are  placed  in  the  hands  of  strangers 
visiting  Jerusalem.  See  the  Italian  manual,  G.  C.  Ferrario, 
Descriz.  e  guida  di  Gerusalemme,  Rome,  Civelli,  1894,  in  which 
is  described  the  column  to  which  was  affixed  the  sentence  passed 
upon  Jesus  (p.  261),  the  Gate  of  Judgment  through  which  Jesus 
passed  to  Calvary,  the  arch  Ecce  Homo  where  Pilate  showed 
Jesus  to  the  people  (p.  262),  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane  with 
eight  olive-trees — and  I  know  not  how  much  celery — the  Grotto 
of  the  Agony  where  Jesus  passed  His  last  night  (p.  287),  the 
Antonia  tower  where  Jesus  was  delivered  over  by  Pilate  to  the 
Jews  (p.  287),  and  other  similar  curiosities  for  honeymoon  trav- 
ellers! 

18  S.  Matthew  xxiii.  14,  16,  23,  33,  35. 

19  S.  Matthew  vi.  1-4. 

20  S.  Matthew  vi.  16,  17. 

21  S.  Matthew  v.  23,  24. 

22  S.  Luke  xviii.  9-14. 

23  S.  Matthew  v.  36,  37. 

24  Vie,  ch.  xx. 

25  S.  John  iii.  1  et  seq. 

26  V .  s.  cap.  iv. 

27  S.  Matthew  xiv.  11,  12;  S.  Mark  vi.  30;  S.  Luke  ix.  9,  10. 

28  S.  Matthew  vii.  17  et  seq.;  S.  Mark  vi.  17,  19,  iii.  19. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 


77 


29  Josephus,  Antiq.  lib.  xiv.;  S.  Matthew  xiv.  6;  S.  Mark  vi. 
17-19. 

30  Negri,  Gesu  a  Cesarea  di  FUippo  in  the  Rivista  Europea, 
November  1875,  p.  402. 

31  Witsii,  Exercitatio  de  Johanne  Baptista,  Misc.  Sacra,  ii.  367. 

32  S.  Luke  ix.  7-9;  S.  Mark  vi.  14-16. 


CHAPTER   VII 

First  Mission  of  the  Apostles — The  Master  shows  the  Disciples 
the  Perils  of  Public  Life — Period  of  Vague  and  Circumspect 
Propaganda — A  Deputation  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees  comes 
from  Jerusalem  to  question  Jesus — A  Query  regarding  Inob- 
servance  of  Form — The  Reply  of  Jesus  against  Pedants  and 
Hypocrites — Another  Mission  of  Seventy  Disciples — Jesus 
after  a  Long  Journey  braves  the  Hostility  of  Jerusalem — 
The  Absolution  of  the  Adulteress — Significance  of  this  Abso- 
lution in  View  of  the  Mosaic  and  Roman  Law — Opinion  re- 
garding Jesus  at  Jerusalem — Refuge  in  John  the  Baptist's 
Country. 

JESUS  knew  of  the  indiscreet  curiosity  of  Herod  from 
the  disciples  of  the  martyred  baptist  and  His  own,  and 
withdrew  into  desert  places  followed  by  the  multitude 
and  by  His  Apostles. 

The  latter  had  just  then  returned  from  the  first  mis- 
sion entrusted  to  them  by  the  Master,  that  of  journey- 
ing through  the  land  and  announcing  the  good  tidings 
in  the  towns  and  villages  through  which  they  passed.1 
And  in  giving  this  mission  Jesus  took  partly  into  ac- 
count all  the  peril  which  He  and  His  ran.  "  Behold, 
I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves ;  be  ye 
therefore  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves.  But 
beware  of  men,  for  they  will  deliver  you  up  to  the  coun- 
cils, and  they  will  scourge  you  in  their  synagogues. 
And  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and  kings  for 
My  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles. 
But  when  they  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought  how  or 
what  ye  shall  speak:  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that 

78 


THE  TRIAL;  OF  JESUS       79 

same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak.  Fear  them  not  there- 
fore, for  there  is  nothing  covered  that  shall  not  be  re- 
vealed, and  hid  that  shall  not  be  known.  What  I  tell 
you  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in  light,  and  what  ye 
hear  in  the  ear,  that  preach  ye  upon  the  housetops. 
And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul ;  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
destroy  both  body  and  soul  in  hell.  Are  not  two  spar- 
rows sold  for  a  farthing?  and  not  one  of  them  shall  fall 
on  the  ground  without  your  Father  knoweth.  But  the 
very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered.  Fear  ye  not 
therefore ;  ye  are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows."  2 

Such  was  the  feeling  that  the  Master  sought  to  render 
clear  and  present  to  the  disciples,  regarding  the  trials 
and  sacrifices  to  which  their  mission  would  expose  them, 
and  to  enable  them  either  to  decline  it  or  clearly  meas- 
ure all  its  hazardous  possibilities — an  example,  indeed, 
worthy  of  imitation,  but  not  imitated,  of  the  just  and 
rigorous  idea  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of  a  leader 
towards  followers  on  an  arduous  public  mission. 

According  to  S.  Matthew,  the  withdrawal  of  Jesus 
into  the  desert  was  due  to  the  execution  of  S.  John  the 
Baptist.  The  same  Evangelist,  however,  relates  that 
Jesus  returned  several  times  to  the  shores  of  the  lake  of 
Gennesaret,  which  seemed  to  possess  an  almost  irre- 
sistible attraction  for  Him,  although  at  times  compelled 
to  leave  them  by  the  workings  of  His  enemies.  It 
would  appear  to  have  been  under  stress  of  these  con- 
flicting influences  that  He  formed  later  on  the  extreme 
and  courageous  resolution  to  precipitate  events  by 
going  Himself  to  Jerusalem.  According,  however,  to 
the  other  two  Evangelists,  Jesus  withdrew  into  solitude 
after  the  grievous  news  of  the  martyrdom  of  John  the 
Baptist  with  the  sole  object  of  obtaining  rest  for  Him- 
self and  His  disciples  on  the  return  of  the  latter  from 


80          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

their  first  mission,  and  had  then  no  prescience  of  any 
imminent  peril.3  But  the  version  of  S.  Matthew,  as  the 
most  probable  one  in  this  slight  divergence  of  motives 
and  not  of  facts,  should  be  preferred. 

The  first  locality  in  which  Jesus  sought  refuge  was 
the  region  of  Bethsaida,  at  the  eastern  extremity  of 
the  lake — a  district  which,  after  the  death  of  Philip, 
another  son  of  Herod  to  whom  it  belonged,  was  annexed 
to  the  province  of  Syria.  How  long  He  may  have 
tarried  there  it  is  not  possible  to  determine,  owing  to 
the  variety  and  inversion  of  some  of  the  dates  in  the 
Gospel  narratives,  but  when  one  considers  how  warm 
a  welcome  was  given  to  Him  on  His  return  to  the  western 
shore  of  the  lake,  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  His 
absence  could  not  have  been  of  short  duration.  He  was 
received  with  great  rejoicings,  and  the  sick  hastened  to 
meet  Him  as  a  Saviour  long  expected  when  He  returned 
to  Gennesaret.4 

It  is  certain  that  His  fame  had  not  only  reached  the 
ears  of  Antipater,  but  that,  passing  over  the  confines  of 
Galilee,  it  had  penetrated  the  jealous  souls  of  the  mag- 
nates of  Jerusalem.  In  fact,  a  deputation  composed 
of  scribes  and  Pharisees  journeyed  from  Jerusalem  to 
Galilee  to  see  matters  for  themselves  on  the  spot,  and 
oppose  the  progress  of  a  propaganda  and  an  associa- 
tion which  began  to  appear  dangerous.  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  are  ready  to  employ  every  art  to  place  Jesus 
in  contradiction  with  the  written  law  and  traditional 
faith  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  regarded  no  fatigue 
as  too  great  to  attain  that  end.  The  first  charge  which 
they  make  against  Him  is  that  of  failing  in  observance 
of  ritual  practices.  "  And  it  is  in  this  charge,"  observes 
one  of  our  few  cultivators  of  Christology,  "  that  all  the 
strength  of  the  Pharisaical  spirit  shows  itself.  In  the 
great  moral  phenomenon  that  was  being  revealed  to  them, 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS  81 

this  party  only  saw  and  observed  the  tendency  to  infringe 
formal  prescriptions;  but  this,  then,  was  precisely  the 
gravest  matter — they  were  mummified  souls  absorbed  in 
the  worship  of  form,  and  for  them  fault,  merit,  chastise- 
ment, and  praise  rested  upon  nothing  but  appearances.5 
The  scribes  and  Pharisees  said  to  Jesus :  "  Why  do  thy 
disciples  transgress  the  tradition  of  the  elders?  for  they 
wash  not  their  hands  when  they  eat  bread." 

Jesus  replied :  "  Why  do  ye  also  transgress  the  com- 
mandment of  God  because  of  your  tradition  ?  For  God 
commanded,  saying,  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother ; 
and  he  that  curseth  father  or  mother,  let  him  die  the 
death.  But  ye  say,  Whosoever  shall  say  to  his  father 
or  his  mother,  That  wherewith  thou  mightest  have 
been  profited  by  me  is  given  to  God ;  he  shall  not  honour 
his  father.  Ye  hypocrites !  well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  of 
you,  saying,  This  people  honoureth  me  with  their  lips, 
but  their  heart  is  far  from  me."  6 

The  constant  and  irreconcilable  idea  of  opposition 
to  all  that  signifies  contradiction  to  the  truth  on  the 
part  of  conventional  forms,  hypocrisy,  and  superstition 
could  not  be  more  openly  revealed  by  Jesus  to  His  ene- 
mies. The  latter  went  their  way  scandalised,  and  when 
the  twelve  informed  the  Master  of  their  departure,  He 
continued  in  the  same  sense,  saying,  "  Let  them  alone : 
they  be  blind  leaders  of  the  blind.  Do  not  ye  yet  under- 
stand that  whatsoever  entereth  in  at  the  mouth  goeth  in 
at  the  belly  and  is  cast  out  into  the  draught?  But  the 
things  which  proceed  out  of  the  mouth  come  forth  from 
the  heart,  and  they  defile  the  man.  For  out  of  the  mouth 
proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulteries,  fornications, 
thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies."  7 

Jesus  left  these  places  and  undertook  a  long  tour  of 
propaganda  of  which  it  would  be  impossible  to  deter- 
mine the  complete  itinerary  or  duration.  It  is  certain 


82          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

that  He  visited  Phoenicia  in  the  environs  of  Tyre,  and 
from  there  journeyed  by  way  of  Sidon  to  the  district  of 
Decapolis,  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  lake,  retracing 
His  steps  to  His  paternal  Galilee,  and  finally  moving 
towards  Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  implacable  hostility.8 

While  preparing  for  this  long  journey  He  chose 
seventy  of  His  followers  and  despatched  them  into  the 
country  round,  as  He  had  already  directed  the  twelve 
Apostles  to  precede  Him  two  by  two  in  the  towns  through 
which  He  intended  passing.  And  in  these  words  He  in- 
structs them :  "  The  harvest  truly  is  plenteous,  but  the 
labourers  are  few.  Pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the 
harvest  that  He  send  forth  labourers  into  His  harvest. 
Go  your  ways.  Behold,  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs 
among  wolves.  Carry  neither  purse  nor  scrip  nor  shoes, 
and  salute  no  man  by  the  way.  And  into  whatsoever 
house  ye  enter,  first  say,  Peace  be  to  this  house,  and  if  the 
Son  of  peace  be  there  your  peace  shall  rest  upon  it ;  if 
not  it  shall  turn  to  you  again.  And  in  the  same  house 
remain  eating  and  drinking  such  things  as  they  give,  for 
the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  And  treat  the  sick 
that  are  therein,  and  say  unto  them,  The  kingdom  of 
God  is  come  nigh  unto  you.  But  into  whatsoever  city 
you  enter  and  they  receive  you  not,  go  your  ways  out 
into  the  streets  of  the  same  and  say,  Even  the  very  dust 
of  your  city  which  cleaveth  on  us  we  do  wipe  off  against 
you;  notwithstanding  be  ye  sure  of  this,  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  come  nigh.  I  say  unto  you  that  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  in  that  day  for  Sodom  than  for  that 
city." 9  It  appears,  however,  that  this  mission  was 
of  brief  duration  and  made  no  great  stir,  since  only 
S.  Luke  mentions  it,  and  no  reference  is  made  to  it  by 
the  other  Evangelists,  nor  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
nor  in  the  apostolic  epistles.10  There  is  no  doubt  that 
in  consequence  of  the  great  favour  with  which  the  word 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  83 

of  Jesus  had  been  received,  many  people  followed  Him, 
from  Galilee  to  Judsea  and  up  to  Jerusalem. 

Here  in  the  temple,11  in  the  Court  of  Women  12  under 
Solomon's  Porch,13  He  spoke  to  new  and  more  difficult 
hearers.  It  appears  that  on  this  occasion  He  remained 
in  the  city  from  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  mid-October 
until  the  feast  of  Dedication  in  the  following  winter.14 

One  day  during  this  stay,  while  in  the  temple  among 
the  people  who  crowded  round  Him  from  admiration 
or  curiosity,  a  woman  was  brought  before  Him. 

"  Master,"  said  they  unto  Him,  "  this  woman  was  even 
now  taken  in  adultery.  Now  Moses  in  the  law  com- 
manded us  to  stone  such  a  one.  But  what  sayest 
Thou?" 

The  question  was  maliciously  put  with  the  object  of 
compromising  so  popular  a  rabbi,  since  it  placed  Him  in 
the  dilemma  of  replying  either  that  the  adulteress  should 
not  be  stoned,  thus  running  counter  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
or  that  she  should  be  stoned,  which  would  be  a  breach 
of  Roman  law,  the  latter  prohibiting  the  Jews  from  pro- 
nouncing death  sentences.  Jesus  at  first  made  no  reply, 
perceiving  perfectly  well  the  snare  set  for  Him;  then 
stooping  down,  He  wrote  with  His  finger  on  the  ground. 
When  they  continued  asking  Him,  He  rose  up  and  said, 
"  He  that  is  without  sin  amongst  you,  let  him  first  cast 
a  stone  at  her."  And  as  they  continued  questioning  Him, 
He  again  stooped  down  and  wrote  on  the  ground.  But 
His  malicious  questioners  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning 
with  the  eldest,  Jesus  alone  remaining  with  the  woman 
standing  in  the  midst. 

"  Woman,"  said  Jesus  unto  her,  "  where  are  they  that 
accused  thee?  Hath  no  man  condemned  thee?  " 

"  No  man,  Lord." 

"  And  Jesus  said,  Neither  will  I  condemn  thee.  Go, 
and  sin  no  more."  1B 


84          THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

Comprehensive  and  irrefutable  words !  He  who  uttered 
them  recognised  the  sin  of  adultery,  and  in  dismissing 
the  woman  exhorted  her  not  to  repeat  it.  He  did  not  ap- 
prove the  fault,  but  commuted  the  penalty.  But  the 
Mosaic  law,  which  in  the  original  conception  of  the 
Decalogue  and  in  the  greater  part  of  the  injunctions 
given  in  the  Pentateuch,  not  excluding  the  more  reason- 
able ordinances  of  a  hygienic  character,  is  a  document 
of  remarkable  wisdom.  It  was,  however,  interpreted  in 
a  narrow  spirit  based  upon  casuistic  quibbles  which  com- 
pletely changed  its  sense,  and  in  view  of  such  a  mode  of 
interpretation  the  indulgence  of  Jesus  became  an  anti- 
juridical  pronouncement,  a  real  overthrowing  of  the  law. 
The  judgment  of  Jesus  could  not  be  more  humane,  nor 
more  consonant  with  the  sublime  idea  of  forgiveness,  for 
the  weak  and  yielding  victims  of  strong  passion  such 
as  had,  through  love,  led  this  woman  to  adultery,  or  for 
the  victims  of  any  determinant  invincible  force,  and  it 
was  these  whom  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  He  taught 
to  pray,  "  Lead  us  not  into  temptation."  16  But  the 
judgment,  though  just,  was  not  legal:  it  afforded 
ground  enough  for  the  narrow  souls  who  were  sticklers 
for  the  impeccable  observance  of  the  law  to  add  a  fresh 
count  to  the  indictment  against  Jesus. 

At  Jerusalem,  public  opinion  concerning  Him  was 
divided  between  those  who  declared  Him  to  be  a  good 
man  and  those  who  said,  "  No,  He  seduceth  the  peo- 
ple." 17  When  He  went  into  the  temple  to  preach,  many 
wondered,  saying,  "  How  doth  this  man  know  letters, 
having  never  learned?  "  18  Some  murmured  against  the 
impunity  which  He  enjoyed.  "  Lo,  this  man  speaketh  in 
public  and  nothing  is  said  to  Him."  "  Can  it  be  that  the 
rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ?  But  we  know 
this  man  whence  He  is;  but  when  the  Christ  cometh 
no  man  knoweth  whence  He  is."  19  Others  sought  to 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS          85 

throw  in  His  face  His  proclamation  of  the  truth  that 
should  make  all  men  free.  "  We  are  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  we  have  never  yet  been  slaves  to  any  man.  How 
sayest  Thou,  Ye  shall  be  made  free?  "  20 

Jesus  replied  to  them,  "  If  you  be  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, do  the  works  of  Abraham.  But  now  you  seek  to 
kill  Me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth  which  I  heard 
from  God.  This  did  not  Abraham."  21  It  seems,  in- 
deed, that  from  that  time  the  enemies  of  Jesus  sought 
to  kill  Him,  or  at  least  to  apprehend  Him,22  and  that 
twice  already  stones  had  been  picked  up  to  cast  at  Him.23 
Still,  these  were  popular  and  not  official  manifestations. 
Evidently  the  holy  city,  head  and  altar  of  the  conserva- 
tive and  religious  spirit  of  the  nation,  was  for  the  greater 
part  hostile  to  Him.  It  was  perhaps  in  order  to  avoid 
fche  extreme  fury  of  this  enmity,  and,  moreover,  because 
His  hour  was  not  yet  come,  nor  His  mission  entirely 
finished,24  that  He  quitted  the  city  which  killed  its 
prophets,  and  returned  to  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan 
in  which  John  the  Baptist  dwelt  during  his  lifetime. 
Here  He  was  soon  surrounded  by  fresh  followers  ready 
to  hail  Him  as  the  Lord  of  whom  the  Baptist  had  an- 
nounced the  coming.25 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  x.5et  seq. 

2  S.  Matthew  x.  16-19,  26-31;   S.  Mark  vi.  7  et  seq.;    S.  Luke 
ix.  1  et  seq. 

3  Cf.  Negri,  Gesu  a  Cesar  ea  di  Filippo,  I.e. 

4  S.  Matthew  xiv.  34-6  ;  cf.  Negri,  I.e. 

5  Negri,  I.e. 

6  S.  Matthew  xv.  1  et  seq.;    S.  Mark  vii.  1  et  seq.;   cf.  Isaiah 
xxix.  13. 

7  S.  Matthew  xv.  12  et  seq. 


86          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

8  S.  Matthew  xiv.  34,  xv.  21,  29,  xvi.  13,  21,  xvii.  22,  24,  xix.  1 ; 
S.  Mark  vi.  32,  45,  53,  56,  vii.  24,  31,  ix.  32,  x.  1;  S.  Luke  ix.  10 
51,  52,  56;  S.  John  vii.  1,  2,  6,  9.     Cf.  Negri,  Gesu  a  Cesarea  di 
Filippo,  I.e.     For  the  difficult  chronology,  cf.  Labanca,  G.  C. 
nella  Lett,  contemp.    Turin,  Bocca,  1903,  cap.  ix.  p.  372,  V.  1, 
cap.  ii.  n.  13. 

9  S.  Luke  x.  1-12.     The  encouragement  here  given  to  the  dis- 
regard of  every  scruple  concerning  food  is  noteworthy.     The 
recommendation  to  avoid  greetings  must  be  interpreted  with 
regard  to  the  custom  of  salutation  then  prevailing  among  Orien- 
tals, with  whom  the  act  of  greeting  was  not  restricted  to  a  gesture 
or  a  word,  but  consisted  of  various  questions  and  replies,  and 
other  ceremonies  which  required  much  time.     Hence  the  recom- 
mendation of  Jesus  resolves  itself  into  a  counsel  in  favour  of 
brevity  and  despatch.     In  fact,  in  the  second  Book  of  Kings  we 
read  that  Elisha  speaks  in  this  sense  to  his  servant  Gehazi, 
enjoining  him  to  gird  his  loins  and  take  his  staff  without  saluting 
any  man  or  conversing  with  any  one  by  the  way,  and  if  any  should 
greet  him  he  is  not  to  make  reply  (2  Kings  iv.  29). 

10  Strauss,  just  because  this  detail  is  destitute  of  any  great 
importance,  believes  it ;    rather  an  important  confession  from 
a  profound  critic,  though  with  a  preconceived  idea  (Vie,  torn.  i. 
ch.  v.  par.  75).     The  choice  of  the  seventy  might,  however,  have 
some  special  signification.     As  the  choice  of  twelve  Apostles 
indicated,  owing  to  their  representing  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel, 
the  mission  of  Jesus  to  the  Jewish  people,  so  the  seventy  (or 
according  to  some  authorities  the  seventy-two)  were  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  seventy  or  seventy-two  peoples  who,  with  as 
many  different  languages,  were  to  be  found  at  that  time  on  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  according  to  the  belief  of  the  Jews  and  the 
first  Christians  (Clem.  Ham.  18,  4  ;  Epiphanius,  Hceres.  i.  5). 

11  S.  John  vii.  14-28. 

12  S.  John  viii.  20.     The  Evangelist  uses  the  word  Gazophy- 
lacium,  which  is  half  Persian  (gaza,  i.e.  riches)  and  half  Greek 
(<f>v\aKr),  i.e.  custody),  which  in  its  general  acceptance  indicated 
the  place  where  the  chests  or  boxes  destined  to  receive  the  obla- 
tions were  kept.     And  the  same  word  is  used  by  S.  Mark,  who 
mentions  the  poor  widow  as  depositing  her  mite  in  one  of  these 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          87 

boxes,  thus  deserving,  according  to  the  memorable  words  of  Jesus, 
more  than  those  who  had  given  larger  offerings.  But  the 
Gazophylacium  was  placed  in  the  Court  of  Women,  so  called, 
not  because  only  women  were  admitted,  but  because  they  could 
not  penetrate  farther  into  the  temple  than  this  court.  Other 
writers  locate  the  Gazophylacium  elsewhere  (Lightfoot,  In 
Horis  hcebr.  et  talm.).  A  copious  if  not  clear  description  of  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  is  to  be  found  in  Josephus  (De  bello  judaico, 
lib.  v.  cap.  v.  and  xiii.). 

13  S.  John  x.  23. 

14  S.  John  vii.  2-10,  x.  22  et  seq.    The  feast  of  Tabernacles 
was  instituted  to  commemorate  the  time  during  which  the  people 
of  Israel  lived  in  tents  in  desert  places  under  the  protection  of 
the  Lord  (Leviticus  v.  23).     The  feast  of  Dedication  was  cele- 
brated to  consecrate  a  temple  or  an  altar.     The  Maccabees,  e.g., 
after  having  purified   the  contaminated  temple   of  Antiochus 
Epiphanus,  celebrated  its  dedication  to  the  service  of  God  (Exo- 
dus xi. ;  Kings  viii. ;  Maccab.  iv.). 

15  S.  John  viii.  1-11.     The  penal  enactment  of  the   Mosaic 
law  against  adultery  to  which  the  accusers  of  the  woman  refer 
is  the  seventh  commandment  of  the  Decalogue,  which  can  be 
reconstructed  from  the  Pentateuch  (cf.  Deuteronomy  v.  21  and 
Exodus  xx.  17),  from  two  passages  in  Leviticus  (xviii.  20  and 
xx.  10),  and  from  two  passages  of  Deuteronomy  (xxii.  22,  24). 
Only  in  the  last-named  passage  (Deuteronomy  xxii.  24)  is  the 
penalty  of  lapidation  clearly  indicated,  whereas  elsewhere  the 
prohibition  against  adultery  is  mixed  up   with   various   other 
ordinances,  some  being  expressed  in  the  form  of  recommenda- 
tions only,  such  as  that  forbidding  women  to  be  touched  quce 
patitur  menstrua  (Leviticus  xviii.  19).     The  passage  here  cited 
concerning  lapidation  either  escapes  the  notice  of  Strauss — who 
from  the  non-existence  of  a  specific  penalty  for  adultery  argues 
in  favour  of  the  non-existence  of  the  incident  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  (Vie,  torn.  i.  ch.  viii.  par.  90) 
— or  the  passage  does  not  appear  to  him  sufficient  to  indicate 
lapidation.     This  is  not  my  opinion,  since  if,  according  to  the 
passage  in  question,  lapidation  is  threatened  for  fornication  on 
the  part  of  a  woman  when  still  only  bound  by  betrothal,  it  must 


B8          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

certainly  be  understood  as  threatened  for  fornication  on  the  part 
of  a  married  woman.  Moreover,  the  reprobation  of  adultery 
appears  in  par.  22  of  the  same  chapter  (xxii),  and  in  par.  24  lapi- 
dation  is  threatened.  Nevertheless,  the  Talmudic  canon  will 
not  bear  application  here  which  says,  "  Omne  mortis  supplicium 
in  scriptura  absolute  positum  esse  strangulationem  "  (Mishna, 
tr.  Sanhedr.  c.  10;  Maimonides,  Sanhedr.  f.  1),  because  the  rule 
in  the  Mosaic  penal  law  whereby  strangulation  is  understood 
to  be  intended  when  no  other  form  of  capital  execution  is  specified, 
is  not  applicable  when  such  specification  is  not  made,  and  it  is 
not  wanting  in  the  present  case.  According  to  the  Talmud  the 
adulterer  was  punished,  not  by  lapidation,  but  strangulation 
(Sanhedr.  84  C.).  That  among  the  accusers  of  the  woman  the 
old  men  were  the  first  to  steal  away  ashamed  and  confounded, 
is  related  by  the  Evangelist  himself  (S.  John  viii.  11). 

About  the  year  1894  there  appeared  successfully  on  the  Italian 
stage  a  piece  in  one  act  by  Deputy  Giovanni  Bovio  entitled  Cristo 
alia  festa  di  Purim,  which  treated  this  argument  on  the  question 
of  adultery.  The  zealots  cried  sacrilege  and  implored  God's 
forgiveness  for  those  guilty  of  it  (Unita  CaUolica,  June  8-9, 1894 ; 
G.  C.  sul  teatro,  Protesta  e  riparazione,  Florence,  Ciardi,  1894. 
Some  critics  praised  the  work  to  the  skies  and  described  it  as 
"the  best  drama  of  our  century,  since  it  represents  the  synthesis 
of  strength  and  the  power  of  faith  in  the  ideals  of  love  and  jus- 
tice" (Enrico  Piccione,  Le  rappresentazione  sacre  e  il  Cristo  del 
Bovio,  Rome,  Perino,  1894,  p.  5).  An  equally  great  partisan 
exaggeration!  In  reading  and  in  seeing  this  piece  it  did  not 
appear  to  me  to  be  either  a  miracle  or  a  blasphemy.  After  com- 
mitting the  unjustifiable  error  by  which  Jesus  is  made  to  appear 
at  the  feast  of  Purim,  this  short  piece  consists  of  a  dialogue 
between  Judas  Iscariot  and  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  appearance 
of  the  adulteress  on  the  scene.  The  dialogue  offends  every  sound 
dramatic  rule,  since  it  is  neither  indicated  nor  justified  by  any 
motive  of  action,  and  is  moreover  overloaded  with  references  to 
the  words  of  other  persons  or  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  who,  however, 
by  a  felicitous  and  delicate  sense  of  fitness  on  the  author's  part, 
does  not  appear  on  the  scene.  Judas  represents  a  patriot  in  the 
garb  of  a  traitor,  which  does  not  seem  to  be  the  happiest  mode  of 


,THE    TRIAL1   OF   JESUS          89 

indicating  and  representing  love  and  patriotic  zeal,  particularly 
since  this  Judas  is  not  the  one  defended  by  Renan  nor  the  one 
invented  by  Petruccelli,  but  simply  the  Judas  of  tradition  who 
betrays  and  sells  his  Master.  In  any  case  he  is  a  political 
reactionary  who  desires  that  Judsea  should  shake  off  the  Ro- 
man yoke,  while  Jesus  is  a  social  revolutionist  advocating 
fraternity  and  equality  among  men.  What  is  revolt  in  one  case 
is  revolution  in  the  other.  This  contrast  may  have  suggested 
itself  to  Signer  Bovio  by  his  acquaintance  with  two  of  his  parlia- 
mentary colleagues,  one  a  republican  patriot  and  the  other  a 
revolutionary  socialist,  although  the  comparison  applied  to  two 
biblical  personages  has  a  somewhat  odious  effect.  The  appear- 
ance of  the  adulteress  is  managed  with  fine  scenic  effect,  but  the 
impression  soon  fades  away  before  the  unfulfilled  exigencies  of  his- 
torical truth  and  dramatic  fitness.  The  scribes  ask  Jesus  what 
He  thinks  of  this  woman,  and  after  being  the  butt  of  some  more 
or  less  ribald  jeers  from  members  of  the  crowd,  Jesus  utters  the 
solemn  words  recorded  in  the  Gospel,  "  He  among  you  who  is 
without  sin,"  etc.  Who  can  fail  to  see  that  these  noble  and  com- 
prehensive words,  preceded  by  such  popular  licence,  lose  their 
spontaneity  and  significance?  Jesus  did  not  defend  the  adul- 
teress, because  even  her  accusers  were  adulterers.  Such  a  defence 
would  have  been  too  easy  and  common  on  the  basis  of  an  argu- 
ment ad  hominem,  but  He  wished  to  admonish  His  hearers  that 
no  one  could  make  himself  an  accuser  and  judge  of  the  faults  of 
others  when,  in  his  own  conscience  and  in  the  average  state  of 
social  feeling  and  custom,  he  found  the  constant  although  una- 
vowable  committal  of  those  faults,  so  that  between  right  feeling 
and  practice  on  the  one  hand,  and  accusing  and  judging  on  the 
other,  contradiction  and  hypocrisy  arise,  and,  finally,  injustice  and 
iniquity.  It  matters  not  that  the  practical  habit  of  the  fault  falls 
under  the  same  category  of  culpable  actions  ;  in  this  manner  the 
species  is  prejudicial  to  the  genus,  the  concrete  to  the  abstract, 
whereas  Jesus  spoke  in  general  terms  in  full  coherence  with  His 
great  thought  enunciated  on  another  occasion,  "Judge  not,  that 
ye  be  not  judged  "  (S.  Matthew  vii.  1) — a  thought  confirmed  by 
Him  in  practice  when  refusing  to  settle  the  question  of  a  dis- 
puted inheritance  (S.  Luke  xii.  13),  and  confirmed  anew  by  the 


90          THE   TRIAE   OF   JESUS 

words  which  he  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  :  "Ye  judge  after  the 
flesh:  I  judge  no  man  "  (S.  John  viii.  15).  So  much  is  this  true, 
that  when  left  alone  with  the  adulteress,  He  that  had  never  com- 
mitted adultery  dismissed  her  saying:  "Neither  will  I  condemn 
thee."  And  then  in  the  Gospel  text  one  does  not  read  all  those 
small  details  which  tend  to  diminish  a  great  truth,  and  which  after 
all  deprive  it  of  its  natural  vis  comica:  "  cum  ergo  perseverarent 
interrogantes  eum  "  is  a  phrase  that  indicates  insistence  and  repe- 
tition of  the  same  demand,  and  not  specification  and  discussion. 

More  valuable  though  less  genial  among  the  recent  theatrical 
representations  on  the  fruitful  theme  of  Jesus  are  La  Samaritaine 
of  Edmond  Rostand  and  La  Tentazione  di  Gesu  of  Arturo  Graf. 
The  work  of  the  illustrious  author  of  Cyrano  de  Bergerac  is 
developed  in  three  acts  round  the  well  of  Sichem,  and  in  it  figure 
the  three  patriarchs  who  effectively  represent  the  traditions  of  the 
people  of  Israel.  It  is  a  work  treated  with  a  certain  mastery  of 
touch,  but  not  with  happy  effect.  Graf's  piece  consists  simply 
of  a  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  Satan  maintained  throughout 
at  the  height  befitting  the  theme.  Various  forms  of  temptation, 
love,  money,  power,  are  successively  represented  by  appropriate 
scenic  effects,  and  then  by  antithesis  to  these  alluring  baits 
appears  a  vision  of  the  cross  dimly  seen  by  the  first  pale  light  of 
an  Eastern  dawn  on  the  hill  of  Golgotha.  The  whole  effect  of  the 
piece  is  much  aided  by  the  appropriate,  thoughtful,  and  beautiful 
music  composed  for  it  by  the  Maestro  Carlo  Cordara.  But  how 
far  could  I  not  be  led  by  the  fascinating  theme  of  Jesus  in  art  ? 
To  begin  at  the  end — that  is  to  say,  by  its  musical  expression — the 
subject-matter  is  rich  and  important  enough  from  the  study  of 
the  conceptions  of  Bach,  Beethoven,  Pergolese,  Rossini,  and 
Perosi,  but  becomes  immense  when  we  go  back  to  sculpture, 
painting,  and  architecture.  But  an  adequate  study  of  Jesus  in 
art  has  not  yet  been  written. 

16  S.  Matthew  vi.  13. 

17  S.  John  vii.  12,  43. 

18  S.  John  vii.  14,  15. 

19  S.  John  vii.  26,  27. 

20  S.  John  viii.  32,  33. 

21  S.  John  viii.  39,  40. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS          91 

22  S.  John  vii.  25,  30,  32,  44,  x.  39. 

23  S.  John  viii.  59,  x.  31.     This  Evangelist  places  here  the  first 
projects  of  reprisals  against  Jesus  harboured  by  the  Jews,  while 
the  Synoptics  refer  them  to  a  somewhat  later  date.     It  must, 
however,  be  admitted  that  there  were  various  currents  of  public 
opinion  at  the  time. 

24  S.  John  vii.  6,  8. 

25  S.  Matthew  xix.  1;  S.  Mark  x.  1;  S.  John  x.  40. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

A  Message  from  Bethany — The  House  of  Lazarus,  Martha,  and 
Mary — The  Fame  of  the  Resurrection  of  Lazarus — The 
Elders  and  Priests  of  Jerusalem  convene  the  Sanhedrin — 
The  Statutory  Necessity  that  some  one  should  die  for  the 
People — It  is  decided  that  Jesus  shall  die — Juridical  Con- 
sequences of  this  Anticipatory  Decision — The  Fame  of  other 
Miracles  as  tending  to  render  Jesus  amenable  to  the  Pro- 
visions of  the  Penal  Law — The  Capital  Charge  of  working 
Miracles  on  the  Sabbath — Other  Warnings  of  Danger — The 
Supper  at  Bethany — Judas  Iscariot  and  his  Treachery  as 
treated  by  Tradition — Jesus  at  the  Epilogue  of  His  Mission 
— His  Joyous  Entry  into  Jerusalem — Political  and  Juridical 
Value  of  the  Fact— Last  Conflicts  in  the  Temple— The  Last 
Supper. 

IT  was  while  in  the  midst  of  this  tranquil  but  fruitful 
work  that  a  message  destined  to  draw  Him  from  it 
reached  Jesus  at  Bethany.1  This  was  a  village  situated 
on  the  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  which  overlooks  the 
Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  an  hour  and  a  half's  journey 
from  Jerusalem.  Here  Jesus  knew  a  family  of  three 
persons,  two  sisters  and  a  brother,  whose  friendship  was 
very  dear  to  Him.  Martha,  one  of  the  sisters,  was  active 
and  housewifely ;  the  other,  named  Mary,  was  of  a  more 
languid  and  contemplative  character,  and  often  sat  at 
the  feet  of  the  Master.  Thus  occupied,  she  sometimes 
forgot  her  domestic  duties,  and  Martha  reproached  her 
gently  on  that  account. 

Their  brother  Lazarus  was  also  much  loved  of  Jesus. 
There  was  another  member  of  the  family,  the  master 
of  the  house — a  leper  named  Simon.2 

92 


THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS  93 

The  message  came  from  this  family  and  said  that 
Lazarus  was  ill.  Jesus  hastened  to  Bethany,  and  thence 
the  rumour  gradually  spread  that  on  arriving  Jesus  had 
found  His  friend  already  dead  and  had  raised  him  to 
life.3  This  report  caused  great  stir,  and  while  increasing 
the  supporters  of  Jesus,  embittered  His  enemies.  Some 
hastened  to  relate  what  had  occurred  to  the  Pharisees, 
and  the  latter  resolved  to  lose  no  more  time.  On  this 
occasion  they  held  council  with  the  priests.  "  What 
is  happening?  "  they  asked  themselves.  "  This  man  is 
working  great  marvels,  and  if  we  allow  Him  to  go  on, 
we  shall  have  the  Romans  taking  from  us  our  country 
and  our  nationality."  4  They  were  not  sincere  in  thus 
arguing,  as  it  will  be  seen  how  widely  the  Roman 
procurator  differed  from  themselves  regarding  Jesus, 
but  they  disguised  private  passion  under  the  pretext 
of  public  welfare.  Meanwhile,  one  of  the  assembled 
councillors,  the  high  priest  Caiaphas,  observed :  "  '  Ye 
know  nothing  at  all,  nor  consider  that  it  is  expedient  for 
us,  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the 
whole  nation  perish  not.'  And  this  spake  he  not  of  him- 
self :  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that 
Jesus  should  die  for  the  nation.  Then  from  that  day 
forth  they  took  counsel  together  for  to  put  Him  to 
death."  5 

Here  an  observation  should  be  made  which  will  serve 
to  reveal  the  real  origin  of  the  judgment  upon  Jesus, 
which  very  shortly  men  will  be  saying  could  be  pro- 
nounced by  the  elders  and  priests  of  Jerusalem.  But 
these  men  had  already  decided  the  fate  of  Jesus.  It 
was  these  same  elders,  these  same  priests,  who  had 
already  bound  conscience  and  intelligence  to  a  pre- 
conceived opinion,  who  were  to  be  the  unbiassed  and 
serene  judges  of  the  trial  which  the  Accused  of  Nazareth 
was  to  undergo  before  the  Sanhedrin.  Whatever  may 


94  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

be  the  procedure  of  this  tribunal,  the  judges  who  shall 
state  that  they  pronounced  a  righteous  sentence  will 
be  guilty  of  falsehood,  not  only  for  having  judged  most 
unjustly  the  charges  brought  against  the  accused,  but 
because  they  acted  upon  a  resolution  already  arrived 
at  between  themselves — namely,  that  Jesus  must  die. 

At  this  time,  and  in  fact  even  before  the  resurrection 
of  Lazarus,  though  much  more  afterwards,  the  news 
spread  abroad  of  other  miracles  worked  by  Jesus,  who 
was  reported  to  have  cured  those  possessed  by  evil 
spirits,6  lepers,7  paralytics,8  the  lame,9  the  crippled,10 
the  blind,11  the  deaf,12  and  the  dropsical;13  also  that 
with  a  small  quantity  of  food  he  had  fed  a  multitude 
of  persons,14  that  He  had  turned  water  into  wine,15  that 
He  had  become  transfigured  on  the  Mount,16  had  walked 
on  water,17  and  raised  the  dead  to  life.18 

The  question  of  miracles,  their  authenticity,  their  ex- 
planation, though  it  cannot  be  an  indifferent  one  to 
theological  or  rationalistic  criticism,19  is  altogether  so 
as  regards  the  matter  of  these  pages,  in  which  every 
act  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is  noted  or  omitted  according 
as  it  may  or  may  not  come  within  the  fixed  domain 
of  contemporary  penal  justice.  Now  the  miracles  at- 
tributed to  Jesus  aroused  the  jealousy  of  His  enemies 
by  convincing  them  of  His  increasing  favour  with  the 
people  owing  to  the  theurgic  attraction  which  He  exer- 
cised, and  in  fact  the  anxious  conferences  between  the 
elders  and  the  priests,  assembled  for  the  first  time  in 
council,  had  no  other  significance,  but  the  miracles  them- 
selves could  not  and  never  did  of  themselves  afford 
ground  for  legal  indictment. 

The  significance  now  attached  to  miracles  by  virtue 
of  the  better  knowledge  supposed  to  be  possessed  regard- 
ing natural  laws  and  their  limits  was  then  unknown.  In 
nearly  all  antiquity  a  miracle  was  only  an  extraordinary 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  95 

event,  recognised  as  being  even  outside  the  domain  of 
religion,  to  which  it  is  now  restricted.  Not  only  the  min- 
isters of  the  divinity,  but  also  the  magi  and  the  exorcists, 
supported  by  the  general  confidence,  wielded  to  a  certain 
extent  this  prodigious  force.  In  Samaria  a  magus  named 
Simon  by  his  conjurations  created  for  himself  a  position 
in  which  he  received  almost  divine  honours.  Except 
by  the  great  scientific  schools  of  Greece,  miracles  were 
admitted.  The  illustrious  school  of  Alexandria  accepted 
them,  Plotinus  and  other  Alexandrine  philosophers  had 
the  reputation  of  being  able  to  work  them,  and  even  at 
Rome  there  were  some  men  believing  themselves  in  pos- 
session of  the  favour  of  heaven  (favor  cceli)  and  the 
special  grace  of  the  Divinity  (mclinaiio  mimmum)  who 
enjoyed  the  same  repute.  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  assure 
us  that  Vespasian  was  accosted  in  Alexandria  by  a  blind 
man  who,  asserting  that  he  was  acting  under  the  counsel 
of  the  god  Serapis,  entreated  the  Emperor  to  cure  him 
by  moistening  his  eyes  with  saliva,  which  Vespasian  is 
reported  to  have  done  with  success.20  The  Old  and  the 
New  Testament  abound  in  miraculous  stories.  Through 
the  agency  of  Moses  the  famished  people  were  succoured 
by  supernatural  means.  The  prophets  Eli  and  Elisha 
closed  the  eyes  of  some,  opened  those  of  others,  and  raised 
the  dead  to  life.21  The  ideas  concerning  the  influence  of 
malignant  spirits  over  men,  causing  melancholy,  delir- 
ium, and  epilepsy,  grew  among  the  Greeks  and  Hebrews 
through  the  progressive  diffusion  of  Oriental,  and  par- 
ticularly Persian,  pneumatology,  and  of  such  influence 
traces  are  to  be  found  in  Josephus,  Lucian,  and  Philo- 
stratus.22  An  evil  spirit  rendered  Saul  morose  and  rest- 
less.23 Vainly  did  Hippocrates,  four  and  a  half  cen- 
turies before  Jesus,  in  his  treatise  Del  male  sacro  state  the 
principles  of  medicine  in  such  cases.  The  error  long  per- 
sisted, and  the  art  of  the  exorcist^  I  do  not  say  of  the 


96          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

thaumaturgist,  was  as  regular  a  profession  as  that  of  the 
doctor.24  Hence  thaumaturgy  was  not,  even  in  the  coun- 
try of  Jesus,  a  new  phenomenon,  contrary  to  custom  and 
common  opinion,  so  that  it  might  excite  the  wonder  and 
the  reprobation  of  the  many,  though  not  the  suscep- 
tibility of  penal  justice. 

It  is  true  that  those  miracles,  claimed  as  being  of  direct 
divine  origin,  might  constitute  some  of  the  signs  and 
attributes  of  the  Messiah  who  was  expected  as  a  second 
Moses  and  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  among  the 
prophecies  speaking  of  him  who  was  to  come,  that  of 
Isaiah,  "  Then  the  eyes  of  the  blind  shall  be  opened, 
and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  shall  be  unstopped ;  then  shall 
the  lame  man  leap  as  an  hart  and  the  tongue  of  the 
dumb  sing."  25  Of  Jesus  Himself  a  sign  ( o-^etov)  was 
more  than  once  asked — a  sign  which  would  have  been  in 
contradiction  with  His  real  nature.26  But  these  signs, 
though  proper  to  the  Messiah,  were  not  exclusively  His, 
so  true  is  it  that  Jesus  did  not  regard  them  as  essential 
to  His  Messianic  revelation.  To  those  who  besought 
miracles  of  Him  He  twice  happily  replied :  "  When  it  is 
evening,  ye  say  it  will  be  fair  weather,  for  the  sky  is  red. 
And  in  the  morning,  it  will  be  foul  weather  to-day,  for 
the  sky  is  red  and  lowering.  Ye  can  discern  the  face  of 
the  sky,  but  can  ye  not  discern  the  signs  of  the  times  ?  A 
wicked  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign, 
and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  it  but  the  sign  of 
the  prophet  Jonas.27  For  as  Jonas  was  three  da}^s  and 
three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly,  so  shall  the  Son  of  Man 
be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the 
earth."  28  And  to  confirm  that  He  did  not  make  of 
miracles  a  virtue  exclusive  to  Himself,  it  is  sufficient  to 
recall  the  duty  which  He  assigned  to  His  apostles  when 
sending  them  on  their  first  mission :  "  Heal  the  sick, 
cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the  dead,  cast  out  devils."  29 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS  97 

One  would  like  to  know  on  what  grounds  the  enemies  of 
Jesus  believed  they  could  find  Him  guilty  of  a  breach 
of  the  Mosaic  law?  Not  in  working  miracles  nor  in 
doing  so  on  the  Sabbath.  When  the  old  and  poor  par- 
alytic man  found  no  one  to  put  him  into  the  holy  pool 
at  the  time  the  water  was  troubled,  and  that  whenever  he 
drew  near  somebody  went  down  the  steps  before  him, 
Jesus  told  him  to  take  up  his  bed  and  walk — it  was  the 
Sabbath  day.30  When  the  beggar,  blind  from  birth,  was 
surrounded  by  rabbis  and  scribes  who  found  nothing 
better  to  do  than  to  dispute  whether  his  affliction  was  his 
own  fault  or  that  of  his  parents,  according  to  the  vulgar 
belief  that  every  ill  was  sent  by  God  in  punishment  for 
the  sins  of  the  forefathers  unto  the  fourth  generation, 
Jesus  bathed  the  eyes  of  the  beggar  with  mud  from  the 
pool — this  also  was  on  the  Sabbath.31  But  the  bigoted 
sticklers  for  the  law  would  have  demanded  that  the  man 
who  had  sight  restored  to  him  should  re-close  his  eyes  and 
the  old  paralytic  set  down  his  bed  again,  because  they 
esteemed  it  was  not  lawful  even  to  carry  one's  bed  on  the 
Sabbath  day. 

Unsatisfied  and  exasperated  in  their  ill-repressed  rage 
against  Jesus,  they  still  found  some  comfort  in  the  hope 
of  having  discovered  a  capital  charge  against  him.  This 
man  is  not  of  God,  because  He  keepeth  not  the  Sabbath 
day.  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such  miracles  ?  32 
Jesus  replied  with  His  never- failing  refutation  of  adver- 
saries :  "  Ye  on  the  Sabbath  day  circumcise  a  man.  If  a 
man  on  the  Sabbath  receive  circumcision,  that  the  law  of 
Moses  should  not  be  broken,  are  ye  angry  at  Me  because 
I  have  made  a  man  every  whit  whole  on  the  Sabbath  day  ? 
Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but  judge 
righteous  judgment."  33  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  34 

Certainly  the  Mosaic  law  forbade  work  on  the  Sab- 


98          THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

bath  day,  a  day  of  rest  consecrated  to  Jehovah,  and 
punished  non-observance  of  this  precept  with  the  capital 
punishment  of  lapidation.  But  the  text  of  the  laws 
containing  the  prohibition  and  the  penalty  of  labour 
on  the  Sabbath  nowhere  lends  itself  to  so  rigorous  an 
interpretation  as  to  include  among  the  various  manners 
of  work  thus  penalised  that  of  touching  the  eyes  of 
a  blind  man,  or  speaking  to  a  paralytic.35  Such  an 
interpretation  would  require  the  application  of  the  law, 
in  the  first  place,  before  all  others,  to  those  loquacious 
and  pedantic  scribes  who  in  full  Sabbath  not  only  per- 
formed such  surgical  work  as  circumcision,  much  more 
material  in  character  than  the  therapeutic  work  of  a 
miracle,  but  fatigued  themselves  by  noisy  discussions  in 
public  places. 

If  the  law  were  so  rigorously  interpreted,  it  would 
have  to  be  applied  to  the  most  ordinary  affairs  of  daily 
life,  which  were,  on  the  contrary,  generally  transacted 
without  reproach.  There  were  disputations  between 
the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Schammai  whether  it  was  even 
lawful  to  comfort  the  sick  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  the 
most  pedantic  sticklers  for  trifles  among  the  Pharisees 
enjoined  absolute  inertia  and  immobility  on  that  day.36 
The  more  spontaneous  activity  of  the  life  of  the  devout 
descendants  of  Moses  will  not  be  arrested  even  for  an 
hour.  Jesus  in  His  replies  dwelt  upon  the  scruples  of  the 
hypocrites,  and  asked  what  it  was  most  fitting  to  do  on 
the  Sabbath  day — good  or  evil?  to  preserve  or  destroy 
an  existence?  He  dealt  with  the  argument  in  a  masterly 
way,  bringing  forward  the  usual  striking  example, 
"  What  man  shall  there  be  among  you  that  shall  have 
one  sheep,  and  if  it  fall  into  a  pit  on  the  Sabbath  day, 
will  he  not  lay  hold  on  it  and  lift  it  out?  How  much 
then  is  a  man  of  more  value  than  a  sheep,  wherefore  it 
is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath  day." 37  And 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  99 

again :  "  Ye  hypocrites  !  doth  not  each  one  of  you  on  the 
Sabbath  loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  from  the  stall  and  lead 
him  away  to  watering?  "  38  His  adversaries  know  not 
what  to  reply,  blush  for  themselves,  and  leave  the  Master 
in  the  midst  of  the  people  who  are  not  scandalised  but 
convinced.39 

The  enemies  of  Jesus,  much  as  they  might  be  inflamed 
with  wrath  and  consumed  by  envy,  could  not  use  as 
elements  in  their  indictments  against  Him  any  argu- 
ments based  on  the  fact  of  His  working  miracles,  and 
in  confirmation  of  this  it  may  be  observed  that  nothing 
was  said  of  any  charge  regarding  miracles  in  the  pro- 
ceedings either  before  the  Sanhedrin  or  in  the  Pretorium. 

After  the  first  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin,  Jesus,  accom- 
panied by  His  disciples,  left  Jerusalem,  whither  He  was 
shortly  to  return  when  His  hour  was  come.  He  went 
to  Ephraim,  a  little  town  near  the  desert  separating  the 
territory  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  from  the  Jordan.40  As 
Easter  was  drawing  near,  Jesus  could  join  the  caravan 
of  pilgrims  journeying  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  by 
way  of  Samaria,  or  by  the  caravan  leaving  Perea  for 
Jerusalem  by  way  of  Jericho.  Jesus  chose  the  latter 
route,  and  when  the  caravan  reached  the  first  slopes  of 
Sion  and  prepared  to  enter  the  holy  city,  He  withdrew 
to  Bethany  to  visit  the  hospitable  home  of  Martha  and 
Mar}7.41  Here  a  supper  was  given  in  His  honour  at 
which  Lazarus  and  the  twelve  Apostles  were  present, 
Martha  ministering  to  the  wants  of  the  company. 
And  while  Jesus  reclined  at  table,  Mary  appeared,  and 
approaching  Him,  anointed  His  feet  with  liquid  oint- 
ment of  spikenard,  afterwards  wiping  them  with  her  long, 
luxuriant,  thick  hair,  so  that  the  chamber  was  filled  with 
the  grateful  perfume.  One  of  the  twelve  disapproved  of 
what  he  regarded  as  this  waste  of  precious  ointment, 
"  which  might  have  been  sold  for  three  hundred  pence 


100        THE   TRIAL'  OF  JESUS 

and  have  been  given  to  the  poor."  42  He  who  reasoned 
thus  was  Judas  Iscariot,  the  treasurer  of  the  apostolic 
family.  He  was  a  thief,  and  on  this  account  the  lavish 
use  of  the  ointment  might  have  displeased  him.  He 
might  have  preferred  to  have  charge  of  its  value.  But 
his  harsh  and  unseemly  act  of  opposition  to  the  Master 
was  really  due  to  another  reason.  This  act  was  the  rev- 
elation of  the  betrayal  which  he  contemplated. 

The  love  of  opposition  and  the  question  of  the  betrayal 
of  Jesus  have  led  many  minds  to  make  of  Judas  an  al- 
together different  figure  from  that  under  which  he  is 
clearly  presented  in  the  Gospels.  Hence  this  man,  whom 
the  whole  Christian  tradition  represents  as  a  thief  and  a 
betrayer,  appears  as  a  devoted  patriot,  as  if  patriots  at 
all  times  and  in  every  nation  were  habitually  to  be  found 
among  renegades  and  thieves.  This  spirit  of  contradic- 
tion has  been  carried  so  far  as  even  to  ignore  the  miser- 
able end  of  Judas,  sought  by  himself,  with  a  rope  round 
his  neck,  and  to  maintain  that  after  the  sacrifice  of  the 
betrayed  Master,  Judas  led  a  retired  but  pleasant  life  on 
the  field  of  Aceldama — bought  with  the  price  of  his 
treachery — while  his  former  friends  conquered  the  world, 
spreading  everywhere  the  story  of  his  treason.43 

Gospel  tradition  is,  however,  unanimous  in  attesting 
that  Judas  was  the  unfaithful  disciple  who  after  the 
supper  at  Bethany  went  to  the  chief  priests  and  made 
the  base  offer  to  sell  the  Master.  "  What  will  ye 
give  me,  and  I  will  deliver  Him  unto  you?"  They 
covenanted  with  him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price 
of  a  slave,  and  from  that  time  Judas  sought  opportunity 
to  betray  the  Master.44  Six  days  of  life  now  remained 
to  Jesus. 

He  is  again  in  Jerusalem  at  the  epilogue  of  His  mis- 
sion. Crossing  the  Mount  of  Olives,  on  the  hollow  flank 
of  which  lay  Bethany,  He  entered  the  city  riding  on  an 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        101 

ass.  The  multitude  which  had  already  commenced  to 
gather  around  Him  at  Jericho  preceded  Him  to  the  gates 
of  Jerusalem,  spreading  mantles  and  tunics  on  His  pas- 
sage, strewing  the  way  with  branches  of  trees,  and  cry- 
ing, "  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  Name  of  the 
Lord !  Hosanna  in  the  Highest !  "  A  multitude  which 
swelled  as  it  progressed,  like  the  waters  of  a  river  as  it 
nears  its  junction  with  the  sea,  followed  with  the  same 
jubilant  cries.  Jesus,  knowing  how  disturbed  His  official 
enemies  would  be  on  account  of  His  glorious  entry  into 
Jerusalem,  reassured  them  in  words  of  ironical  humour: 
"  Fear  not,  daughters  of  Zion.  Behold,  thy  King  cometh 
sitting  on  an  ass's  colt."  All  the  people  were  moved,  and 
some  asked :  "  Who  is  this  ?  "  and  the  multitude  said : 
"  This  is  Jesus,  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  of  Galilee."  45 
There  are  some  who  see  in  this  event  evidence  of  a  politi- 
cal conspiracy  by  which  the  Master  of  Nazareth,  aided 
by  the  people,  was  to  seize  upon  power.  But  what  power? 
And  in  connection  with  what  political  programme? 
Reimarus,  quoted  by  Strauss,  endeavours  to  prove  that 
Jesus  had  such  designs,  but  Strauss  himself  does  not  give 
assent  to  this  false  supposition.  Arguing  on  profes- 
sionally critical  lines,  Strauss  holds  that  Jesus,  who  as- 
sumed the  Messianic  mission  in  His  life  and  always  op- 
posed the  prevalent  idea  of  a  terrible  and  warlike 
Messiah,  referred  to  the  prophetic  text  of  Zechariah  as 
justifying  His  appearance  before  the  people  as  the 
clement  Prince  of  Peace.46  But  the  evident  reason  that 
does  away  with  any  suspicion  of  conspiracy  is  to  be 
found  in  the  clear  and  inviolable  finality  of  the  doc- 
trine and  conduct  of  Jesus,  both  directed  to  the  con- 
quest of  a  kingdom  that  was  not  of  this  world.  This 
will  be  his  sole  defence  in  the  Pretorium,  and  mean- 
while His  ironical  exclamation,  alluding  to  the  humble 
character  of  His  equipage  when  entering  Jerusalem, 


102         THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

is  the  most  sincere  and  just  manifestation  of  His 
innocence. 

It  is  also  true,  however,  that  this  triumphal  entry 
caused  great  stir  throughout  the  city,  which  was  very 
full  owing  to  the  nearness  of  Easter-time,  and  that  irri- 
tation was  at  length  felt  by  the  aristocracy  of  the 
temple,  who  were  constantly  being  worked  upon  by  the 
Pharisees.  A  great  multitude  from  the  city  had  met 
Jesus,47  and  there  had  been  no  adverse  manifestation. 
It  was  only  the  Pharisees  who  were  consumed  by  envy 
and  ill-will ;  they  said  among  themselves :  "  Perceive  ye 
how  ye  prevail  nothing?  Behold,  the  world  is  gone  after 
Him."  And  some  of  the  Pharisees  from  among  the 
multitude  said  unto  Him :  "  Master,  rebuke  thy  dis- 
ciples," and  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  "  I  tell 
you  that  if  these  shall  hold  their  peace,  the  stones  will 
cry  out."  On  nearing  the  city  and  looking  upon  it, 
He  wept  at  the  thought  of  its  conservative  and  fatal 
opposition  to  His  mission.  "  If  thou  hadst  known," 
He  said,  "  even  thou,  at  least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things 
which  belong  unto  thy  peace !  but  now  they  are  hid  from 
thine  eyes.  For  the  days  shall  come  upon  thee,  that 
thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee,  and  com- 
pass thee  round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side,  and 
shall  lay  thee  even  with  the  ground,  and  thy  children 
within  thee;  and  shall  they  not  leave  in  thee  one  stone 
upon  another;  because  thou  knewest  not  the  time  of 
thy  visitation." 50  Meanwhile  the  people  escorting 
Jesus  dispersed  at  the  gate  of  Shushan. 

The  Master  went  to  pass  the  night  at  Bethany  with 
His  disciples.  A  day  or  two  later  He  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  there  argued  hotly  with  the  rabbis  and 
scribes,  these  disputes  being  the  last  of  His  open  and 
irreconcilable  conflicts  with  the  temple.51  In  the  evening 
He  again  went  up  to  Bethany,  or  rather  to  the  western 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         103 

valley  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  where  he  had  many 
beloved  followers.52  This  was  the  only  district  in  the 
environs  of  Jerusalem  which  presented  a  bright  and 
verdant  aspect,  and  the  palms,  fig-trees,  and  olive- 
trees  which  were  numerous  and  fruitful  gave  name  to 
the  villages  or  districts  of  Bethany,  Bethphage,  and 
Gethsemane.53 

On  Thursday  evening  He  sat  at  the  Last  Supper  with 
His  disciples,  and  here  in  various  ways  unconnected  with 
the  scope  of  these  pages  He  affixed  the  seal  of  the  new 
human  spiritual  alliance.  Towards  the  end  of  supper 
He  revealed  to  His  disciples  the  bitter  vision  that  was 
passing  through  His  soul.  "  Verily,"  He  exclaimed, 
"  one  of  you  shall  betray  me."  The  disciples  were  sitting 
near  Him,  and  S.  John  rested  his  head  on  the  bosom  of 
Jesus.  The  traitor  was  also  present.  The  latter  dared 
to  ask,  like  the  others,  "  Master,  is  it  I?  "  More  sensi- 
tive than  his  companions,  S.  Peter  felt  bitter  pain  under 
the  suspicion  that  appeared  to  weigh  upon  all,  and  made 
a  sign  to  S.  John,  who  could  speak  to  the  Master  without 
being  heard  by  all,  to  question  Jesus  concerning  the 
grave  allusion. 

Then  S.  John,  raising  himself  from  the  bosom  of  Jesus, 
asked:  "  Lord,  who  is  it?  "  Jesus  answered,  "  He  it  is 
to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And 
when  He  had  dipped  the  sop  He  gave  it  to  Judas  Is- 
cariot,  the  son  of  Simon.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him, 
"  That  thou  doest  do  quickly."  None  of  those  present 
understood  these  words,  except  perhaps  S.  Peter  and  S. 
John.  Hence  most  of  the  disciples  believed  that  the 
Master  had  given  to  Judas  some  directions  concerning 
the  feast  of  the  morrow.  Meanwhile  Judas,  having  re- 
ceived the  sop,  departed. 

And  it  was  night.54 


104        ,THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 


NOTES 

1  S.  John  xi.  3.    This  same  Evangelist  says  that  Bethany  was 
fifteen  stadii  journey  from  Jerusalem  (xi.  18).     It  is  now  called 
Lararidh,  from  Lazarus,  and  naturally  the  stranger  is  shown 
the  tomb  of  the  friend  of  Jesus,  which  is  in  a  sort  of  high  grotto, 
access  to  which  is  gained  by  a  flight  of  many  steps   from  the 
ground  (Ferrario,  Descriz.  e  guida  di  Gerus.  p.  270). 

2  S.  Luke  x.  39-42  ;  S.  John  xi.  3,  5,  36 ;  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  6 ; 
S.  Mark  xiv.  3. 

3  S.  John  xi.  11  el  seq. 

4  S.  John  xi.  46-8. 

5  S.  John  xi.  49-53. 

6  S.  Matthew  viii.  28-34,  xii.  22-30,  xv.  21  et  seq.',   S.  Luke  iv. 
33-7,  viii.  26-39,  ix.  37-48 ;   S.  Mark  i.  21-7,  iii.  16-31,  ix.  22-7. 

7  S.  Matthew  viii.  2-4  ;  S.  Mark  i.  40-45  ;  S.  Luke  v.  12-16. 

8  S.  Mark  ii.  1-12  ;  S.  Luke  v.  17-26. 

9  S.  John  v.  2-9.     In  the  Piscina  Probatica,  alias  Lakelet  of 
Beasts,  in  Jerusalem. 

10  S.  Matthew  xii.  10-15,  xv.  30  ;  S.  Mark  iii.  1-6. 

11  S.  Matthew  ix.  27-31,  xx.  29-34  ;  S.  Mark  viii.  22-6  ;  S.  John 
ix.  1-7. 

12  S.  Mark  vii.  31-7. 

13  S.  Luke  xiv.  1-6. 

14  S.  Matthew  xiv.  13-21 ;  S.  Mark  vi.  34  et  seq.,  viii.  1-9 ;  S.  Luke 
ix.  12  et  seq. ;  S.  John  vi.  2-13. 

15  S.  John  ii.  1-11,  iv.  46. 

16  S.  Matthew  xvii.  1,  8  ;  S.  Mark  ix.  1-8  ;  S.  Luke  ix.  28-36. 

17  S.  Matthew  xiv.  23-33. 

18  S.  Matthew  ix.  23-6 ;  S.  Mark  v.  35-43  ;  S.  Luke  vii.  11-17, 
viii.  49-56 ;  S.  John  xi.  17-44. 

19  Such  indifference  is  affirmed  by  Harnack  (L'  ess.  del  Crist. 
conf.  ii.),  but  is  confuted  by  orthodox  criticism,  and  with  ample 
reason  (cf.  Civilta  Cattolica,  an.  liv.  vol.  ix.  p.  540  ;  v.  s.  cap.  v. 
note  11). 

20  Philostratus,  Lives  of  the  Sophists :  Life  of  Plotinus,  by  Por- 
phyry, etc. ;  Tacitus,  Hist.  4,  8  ;  Suetonius,  Vespasianus,  7.     Cf. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         105 

Strauss,  Vie,  torn.  i.  Introd.  par.  14 ;  ch.  ix.  pars.  91  and  100 ; 
Renan,  Vie,  ch.  xvi. ;  Harnack,  L'  ess.  del  Crist,  conf.  ii. 

21  Exodus  xvi.  11  et  seq. ;  1  Kings  xvii.  17,  22  ;  2  Kings  iv.  17-35. 

22  Josephus,  Antiq.  vi.  xi.  12 ;  De  bello  jud.  vn.  vi.  3 ;  Lucian, 
Philopseud.  16  ;  Philostratus,  Life  of  Apollonius,  4,  20,  25.    Aris- 
totle had  already  spoken  of  persons  possessed  by  the  devil  (De 
Mirab.   160).     Cf.   Creuzer,  Symbolik,  3,  p.  60  et  seq.;  Baur, 
Apollonius  von  Tyana  und  Christus,  p.  144.     The  lunatici  (o-eXry- 
via£o//,evot)  mentioned  by  S.  Matthew  are  only  a  species  of  pos- 
sessed persons   whose  more  violent  accesses  coincided  perhaps 
with  certain  lunar  phases  (S.  Matthew  xvii.  14  et  seq.). 

23  1  Kings  xvi.  14  ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  vi.  xiv.  1. 

24  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Try  phone,  85 ;  Lucian,  Epigr.  xxiii. ;  Renan, 
Vie,  ch.  xvi. ;  Strauss,  Vie,  Introd.  par.  14  ;  torn.  ii.  ch.  ix.  par. 
92  et  seq. ;  Harnack,  L'  ess.  del  Crist,  conf.  ii.  Modern  science 
has  made  a  great  step  towards  solving  the  problem  of  the  mar- 
vellous, having  now  reached  the  point  of  examining  with  more 
confidence  and  less  hostility  the  allegations  of  facts  attested  as 
miracles,  recognizing  them  as  historical  data  and  drawing  from 
them  their  proper  value  on  that  account,  and  even  the  greatest 
possible  profit.     Faith,  which  believes  illimitably  in  the  mir- 
aculous, finds  itself  towards  science  in  the  position  of  one  who 
has  jumped  by  a  single  leap  to  the  point  which  he  holds,  and 
leaves  others  to  come  up  with  him  by  fatiguing  journeys  and 
laborious  efforts.     For  example,  when  Strauss  in  his  Life  of 
Jesus,  Tubingen  edition,  1836,  spoke  of  miracles,  he  said  that 
science  could  explain  how  "  a  physical  affection  in  which  no 
lesion  existed  in  the  bodily  organs  except  in  the  nervous  system, 
entirely  connected  with  the  soul,  could  be  cured  by  purely  spir- 
itual means  and  by  the  sole  action  of  the  spoken  words  the  looks 
of  Jesus  and  the  impression  which  He  created."     "  But  when 
the  malady  was  one  that  had  penetrated  the  bodily  organism,  a 
cure  in  such  a  case  became  inconceivable  "  (torn.  ii.  ch.  ii.  par. 
100).     But  less  than  half  a  century  later  this  view  ceased  to  be 
held  by  science.     In  our  day  it  no  longer  confines  its  explanation 
to  the  cases  "  in  which  there  has  been  no  lesion  in  the  bodily 
organs  except  the  nervous  system,"  but  on  the  contrary  admits 
and  explains  the  cures — spiritual,  so  to  speak,  of  such  profound 
lesions  and  affections  as  true  ulcers  and  tumours  afflicting  pa- 


106        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

tients  of  both  sexes  of  hysterical  temperament,  and  generally  in 
those  pathological  conditions  which  prove  the  great  influence 
which  the  mind  has  over  the  body.  "  It  is  known,"  says  M. 
Charcot,  "  that  any  violent  emotion  may  nail  us  to  the  ground 
without  the  power  of  moving  a  muscle,  but  on  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  motor  impulsion  emanating  from  the  brain,  we  are 
able  to  walk  as  before."  Now  the  motor  impulsion  can  be  pow- 
erfully re-established  by  a  psychic  force,  by  suggestion.  "  A 
patient,"  Charcot  says  further,  "  hears  that  in  some  sanctuary 
miraculous  cures  are  obtained,  and  since  in  his  infirm  condition 
he  does  not  immediately  decide  to  undertake  an  unknown  jour- 
ney, he  begins  to  question  his  acquaintances  in  order  to  obtain 
information  from  them.  He  then  hears  nothing  but  comforting 
words.  The  doctor  himself  admits  this,  and  says,  '  We  can  do 
nothing  against  natural  laws,'  and  does  not  seek  to  disillusion 
his  patient.  Now  the  suggestion  begins  gradually  to  develop 
itself,  incubation  prepares  it,  the  pilgrimage  augments  it — a 
final  effort,  a  last  prayer,  an  ablution  in  the  holy  well — when  at 
length  that  kind  of  attractive  force  created  by  devotional  ex- 
ercises and  the  predominance  attained  by  the  psychical  over  the 
physical  state  completes  its  work,  and  the  miracle  is  an  accom- 
plished fact."  The  scientific  man,  submitting  to  the  mortifica- 
tion caused  by  his  own  impotence,  can  only  say  to  the  patient 
what  Jesus  said  to  the  woman  whom  He  healed,  "  Go,  thy  faith 
hath  saved  thee."  And  hence  faith-healing  has  its  efficacy  in 
the  power  of  mind  over  body.  On  this  subject  Dr.  Hack  Tuke 
discoursed  largely  thirty  years  ago  in  his  Illustration  of  the  Influ- 
ence of  the  Mind  over  the  Body  in  Health  and  Disease,  Designed  to 
Elucidate  the  Action  of  the  Imagination,  London,  Churchill,  1872. 
Charcot  observes  :  "  Muscular  atrophy  most  often  accompanies 
paralysis  or  hysterical  contraction,  and  that  ulceration  of  the 
skin  and  cutaneous  gangrene  induced  by  edema,  which  in  its 
turn  may  be  induced  by  atrophy,  are  frequent  enough  in  neurosis. 
Nevertheless  faith-healing  is  specially  indicated  in  those  cases 
of  paralysis  which  Russel  Reynolds  claims  to  be  "  dependent  on 
idea  "  (Remarks  on  Paralysis,  etc.,  in  British  Medical  Journal, 
November  1869).  Hence  the  conclusion  has  been  reached  that 
"  the  therapeutic  miracle  has  its  determinism  and  that  the  laws 
which  govern  its  genesis  and  evolution  are  beginning,  in  more 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         107 

than  one  point,  to  be  adequately  known  "  (Charcot,  La  foi  qui 
guerit,  1897).  At  present  a  vast  amount  of  scientific  research  is 
devoted  to  the  subject  of  the  occult  faculties  in  their  varied  and 
complex  phenomena,  such  as  those  of  hypersesthesis  (cf.  De 
Rochas,  Les  etats  profonds  de  Vhypnose,  Paris,  Chamuel,  1896),  the 
transposition  of  the  senses  (cf .  Lombroso,  SulV  azione  del  magnete 
e  sulla  trasposizione  dei  sensi  neW  isterismo  in  Arch,  de  psich. 
1882 ;  Ellero,  Caso  di  ipnosi  con  fenomeni  di  trasposizione  dei 
sensi  in  Gazz.  Med.  Prov.  Veneta,  1893 — cited  by  Ottolenghi,  in- 
fra), on  the  exteriorisation  of  sensibility  (cf.  Joire,  De  V  exteriori- 
sation  de  la  sensibilite  in  Revue  de  Vhypnot.  January  1898), 
on  the  exteriorisation  of  motility  (cf.  Rochas,  IS  exteriorisation 
de  la  metricite,  Paris,  1896  ;  Boirac,  Experiences  sur  V exteriori- 
sation de  la  sensibilite  in  Ann.  de  sc.  psych,  n.  3, 1895),  on  the  sub- 
liminal conscience  (cf .  Myers  on  the  same  subject  in  Ann.  de  sc. 
psych,  n.  4),  on  psychic  force  in  the  spiritist  hypothesis  (cf.  Tam- 
burini,  Spiritismo  e  telepatia  in  Riv.  di  fren.  1892,  p.  434 ;  Lom- 
broso, I  fatti  spiritici  e  la  loro  spiegazione  psichiatrica  in  Vita 
Moderna,  1892).  And  have  not  the  new  physical  discoveries  re- 
vealed, and  do  they  not  promise  to  reveal,  yet  more  laws  hitherto 
shrouded  in  mystery  ?  The  discovery  made  by  Rontgen  in  1895 
upon  the  rays  of  light  passing  through  opaque  bodies  has  already 
raised  doubt  whether  in  the  ambient  in  which  we  live  there  may 
not  be,  without  need  for  induction  apparatus  or  Crookes'  tubes, 
other  rays  traversing  solid  bodies  which  we  do  not  ordinarily  see, 
but  which  become  visible  in  certain  special  physical  conditions — 
as  happens  in  the  phenomena  of  clairvoyance  (cf.  Du  Prel,  Les 
rayons  de  Rontgen  et  Voccultisme  in  Revue  des  Revues,  p.  146, 
March  1896  ;  Ottolenghi,  La  luce  Rontgen  e  la  luciditadelle  ister- 
iche,  in  Scuola  Positiva,  n.  2,  1896  ;  contra :  Morselli  in  Archivio 
per  V  antropologia  e  /'  etnologia,  vol.  xxvi.  f.  ii.  1896).  The  dis- 
covery recently  made  by  our  Marconi  of  wireless  telegraphy  has 
suggested  the  question  whether  a  comparison  may  not  be  insti- 
tuted between  a  generator  and  receiver  of  electricity  and  two 
brains,  that  of  the  agent  and  that  of  the  receiver,  in  such  a  way  as 
to  render  it  possible  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  a  radiation  or 
projection  of  psychic-nervous  force  from  the  surface  of  the  body 
and  the  projection  of  nervous  undulations  to  a  distance,  as  hap- 
pens with  the  Herz  and  Marconi  electrical  undulations,  and  to 


108         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

explain  by  the  same  law  mental  suggestion  and  analogous  occult 
phenomena  (cf.  Ottolenghi,  La  suggestione  e  le  facolta  psichiche 
occulte,  Turin,  Bocca,  1900,  Parte  I.  cap.  iii.  par.  3).  The  latest 
discovery,  that  of  the  N  rays  (radium),  opens  the  mind  to  still 
greater  expectations  in  the  way  of  the  marvellous.  And  with  all 
this,  in  the  question  of  miracles,  it  is  a  saint  and  a  poet  who,  when 
all  is  said,  are  found  to  be  right.  The  saint,  who  was  S.  Augus- 
tine, taught  that  miracles  occur,  not  against  nature,  but  against 
the  knowledge  we  have  of  nature  (De  Gen  ad.  litt.  lib.  vi.  c.  13 ; 
De  civ.  Dei,  1.  xxi.  c.  8).  The  poet — Shakespeare — said  that 
there  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth  than  are  dreamt  of  in 
our  philosophy. 

25  xxxv.  5,  6,  xlii.  7  ;  cf.  Bertholdts,  Christologie,  par.  33,  n.  1. 

26  S.  Matthew  xii.  38,  xvi.  1 ;  S.  John  ii.  18,  vi.  30. 

27  S.  Matthew,  xvi.  2, 4. 

28  S.  Matthew  xii.  40.     In  the  preceding  verses  (38  and  39)  the 
refusal  of  the  request  to  work  miracles — or  give  a  sign — is  re- 
peated. 

29  S.  Matthew  x.  8. 

30  S.  John  v.  5-9. 

31  S.  John  ix.  1-14.     For  the  vulgar  opinion  regarding  the  mala- 
dies looked  upon  as  chastisements,  see  Exodus  xx.  5.     Cf .  Strauss, 
Vie,  torn.  ii.  ch.  ix.  par.  96. 

32  S.  John  v.  16, 18,  vii.  20,  ix.  16. 

33  S.  John  vii.  22-4.     The  commentators  of  the  Bible  err  in  re- 
calling, with  reference  to  verse  24  of  this  text,  verse  16  of  chap.  i. 
of  Deuteronomy  (cf.  e.g.  Martini,  Volgata,  ibid.).     In  this  passage 
judges  are  admonished  to  judge  according  to  the  excellent  rule 
of  making  no  difference  of  persons,  and  more  particularly  be- 
tween citizens  and  strangers  :    sive  civis  sit  ille,  sive  peregrinus. 
But  the  admonition  of  Jesus  is  infinitely  greater  in  virility,  since 
he  reproves  every  judgment  founded  on  externals  and  appear- 
ances which  do  not  correspond  to  a  malicious  consciousness  of  ill- 
doing,  and  founded  also  on  that  materiality  opposed  in  itself  to 
the  law  or  to  opinion  as  to  what  may  be  lawful,  but  not  animated 
by  malicious  intention.     Judgments  so  founded  upon  appearances 
and  materiality  not  animated  by  malice  are  the  delight  of  conven- 
tional hypocrisy  and  of  the  legal  hypocrisy  which  still  dishonours 
custom  and  jurisprudence. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         109 

It  is  our  modern  sages  whose  judgments  are  very  contrary  to  the 
teachings  of  Jesus,  who  condemn  the  serving-maid  found  convey- 
ing arms  by  her  master's  orders,  and  punish  her  for  carrying  arms 
without  a  licence,  or  the  humane  wayfarer  punished  in  the  same 
way  for  relieving  a  wounded  hunter  of  the  fatigue  of  carrying  his 
gun,  or  the  analphabetic  rag-dealer  sentenced  to  the  minimum 
penalty  of  six  months'  imprisonment  for  having  failed  without 
being  able  to  show  his  books  duly  stamped  and  officially  vised,  or 
the  mountaineer  sent  to  prison  for  one  hundred  days  at  least  on 
the  charge  of  stealing  sticks  in  the  snow-covered  wood  in  order  to 
warm  his  family  who  were  perishing  with  cold,  and  other  con- 
demnations of  a  similar  kind. 

34  S.  Mark.  ii.  27. 

35  Numbers  xv.  32-6 ;  Exodus  xx.  10, 11,  xxiii.  12,  xxxi.  15-17, 
xxxiv.  21 ;  Leviticus  xix.  30  ;  Deuteronomy  v.  14,  xvi.  8  ;  cf .  Gen- 
esis ii.  2.     The  Sabbath  rest  was  imposed  not  only  for  the  theo- 
logical reason  of  obedience  to  the  Lord  (Exodus  xx.  11),  but  as  a 
national  memento  of  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt  (Deu- 
teronomy v.  15).     The  texts  use  the  expression  "  observe  the  Sab- 
bath day"  and  "do  network";    one  text  only  says  "not  do  any 
work  whatever  "  without  other  specification  (Deuteronomy  v.  14). 

36  Cf.  Paulus,  Exeg.  handb.  i.  vi.  83  ;  Schabbath,  f.  12,  in  Schott- 
gen,  i.  p.  123  ;  Strauss,  Vie,  torn,  ii.  ch.  ix.  par.  99. 

37  S.  Matthew  xii.  11, 12. 

38  S.Lukexiii.15. 

39  S.  Luke  xiii.  17. 

40  S.  John  xi.  el  seq.    Cf.  Josephus,  De  bello  jud.  iv.  ix.  9 ;  Euse- 
bius,  in  Onomasticvn ;  S.  Jerome,  in  Epist.  Paulus. 

41  S.  Matthew  xx.  17, 29  ;  S.  Mark  x.  1,  46,  xi.  1;  S.  Luke  xviii. 
35.     Cf.  Curci,  II  N.T.  volgarizzato  ed  esposto  in  note  esag.  e  mor. 
ii.  89, 90. 

42  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  6  et  seq.;  S.  Mark  xiv.  3  et  seq.;  S.  John  xii. 
1  et  seq.     It  is  doubtful  whether  the  supper  described  by  S.  John 
is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  the  two  first  Evangelists.     S. 
Luke  is  silent  respecting  it.     The  divergencies  between  S.  John 
and  the  other  Evangelists  are  very  noteworthy.     Cf.,  for  a  special 
dissertation  on  this  subject,  S.  Jerome  in  Matth.  cap.  xxvi.,  and 
S.  Anthony,  De  Virgin.     As  regards  the  personality  of  Mary,  the 
hypotheses  are  various  and  discordant.    Some  believe  her  to  be 


no      THE  TRIAL;  OF  JESUS 

Mary  Magdalene,  some  the  Penitent  Woman,  some  the  sister  of 
Lazarus.  Cf .  Didon,  Jesus-Christ,  Appendix  T  ;  Faillon,  Docu- 
menti  inediti  sugli  Apostoti  di  Provenza;  Calmet,  Dissert,  delle  ire 
Marie.  It  was  a  token  of  peace  commonly  offered  by  women  in 
the  East,  and  particularly  in  Judaea,  that  of  preparing  and  admin- 
istering such  perfumed  ointments  to  persons  of  distinction  whom 
it  was  wished  to  honour.  "  Nardus  mea  dedit  odorem  suum  " 
(Canticles  i.  and  ii.). 

43  Renan,  Vie,  ch.  xxvii.    A  similar  transformation  in  the  evan- 
gelical figure  of  Judas  was  made  by  Petruccelli  della  Gattina, 
Memorie  di  Giuda;  v.  specially  vol.  ii.  p.  260  in  note.    The  same 
thing  was  attempted  by  Bovio,  v.  supra,  cap.  vii.  note  15.    Ter- 
tullian  and  Irenseus  had  already  had  to  oppose  some  writers  of 
their  time,  who  held  the  conduct  of  Judas  to  be  meritorious,  but 
these  writers  only  exaggerated  the  feeling  of  faith,  believing  that 
Judas  had  rendered  a  great  service  to  humanity  by  preparing  the 
Redemption!     According  to  a  precise  statement  handed  down  by 
tradition,  Judas  ended  by  hanging  himself  (Matthew  xxvii.  5). 
According  to  another  account,  "  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst  " 
after  hanging,  "  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out  "  (Acts  i.  18).    Pa- 
pia,  reconciling  these  two  accounts,  states  that  the  traitor  first 
hanged  himself  as  S.  Matthew  relates,  but  the  rope  breaking,  he 
lived  for  some  time,  and  at  length  swelled  so  much  as  to  burst  in 
the  middle.     Papias,  in  (Ecumenio  enarrat.  in  Act.  Apost.     Cf. 
Calmet,  Comment  in  hunc.  loc.  Matth.;  Capacelatro,  Errori  di  Re- 
nan,  cap.  xx.  at  the  end.    Theophrastus  in  Matth.  xxvii.  5.    Ac- 
cording to  S.  Matthew  the  field  of  a  potter  was  bought  by  the 
priests  with  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  cast  down  by  Judas  in  the 
temple,  but  S.  Luke  relates  that  it  was  bought  by  Judas  himself 
(Acts  i.  18). 

44  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  14,  16,  xiv.  10,  11;    S.  Luke  xxii.  3-6 ;   S. 
John  xii.  4.     V.  infra  concerning  the  arrest  of  Jesus  effected  with 
the  aid  of  Judas. 

45  S.  Matthew  xxi.  1, 11;  S.  Mark  xi.  1-11 ;  S.  Luke  xix.  28-44  ; 
S.  John  xii.  12  et  seq. 

46  Strauss,  Vie,  torn.  ii.  ch.  x. 

47  S.  John  xii.  12, 18. 

48  S.  John  xii.  19. 

49  S.Luke  xix.  39, 40, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         111 

50  S.  Luke  xix.  42-4.     According  to  this  Evangelist,  Jesus  for 
the  second  time  drove  the  profane  traffickers  from  the  temple. 
The  circumstance,  unless  due  to  a  mere  repetition,  is  unimpor- 
tant, since  from  the  Evangelists  themselves  it  appears  that  the 
incident  was  unattended  by  any  noteworthy  consequences.     Cf. 
S.  Matthew  xxi.  12,  13  ;  S.  Mark  xi.  15-17 ;  S.  Luke  xix.  45  ;  S. 
John  ii.  14-16  ;  v.  s.  cap.  iv. 

51  S.  Matthew  xxi.  12  et  seq.;  S.  Mark  xi.  15  et  seq.\  S.  Luke  xix. 
45  el  seq. ;  S.  John  xii.  20  et  seq. 

52  S.  Matthew  xxi.  17,  23-45,  xxii.  1  et  seq.,  xxxiii.  1  et  seq.\  S. 
Mark  xi.  11,  27,  et  seq. 

53  Didon,  Jesus-Christ,  Paris,  1891,  liv.  iv.  ch.  i. 

54  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  6-25  ;  S.  Mark  xiv.  3-21 ;  S.  Luke  xxii.  1  et 
seq.;  S.  John  xiii.  1-28. 


CHAPTER   IX 

The  Arrest — Judas  guides  the  Band  sent  to  Apprehend  Jesus — 
The  Kiss  of  Betrayal — The  Beginning  of  an  Attempt  at 
Armed  Resistance — Another  Meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin 
preceding  the  Arrest — Juridical  Significance  of  this  Meet- 
ing— The  Order  and  Form  of  the  Arrest — Provocative 
Agents — The  Use  of  Spies  under  the  Mosaic  Law — The 
Roman  Authority  and  Military  Force  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Arrest — Incompetence  of  the  Jewish  Authority 
to  take  this  Step — Jesus  before  Annas — Formal  Arrest  Un- 
justifiable— Intrigues  and  Interference  of  the  ex-High  Priest 
—The  Nepotism  of  the  Sacerdotal  Family— The  High  Priest 
Joseph  Caiaphas. 

JESUS  rising  from  supper  with  the  eleven  Apostles — 
for  only  eleven  now  remained  to  Him — wended  His  way 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  On  this  short  nocturnal  jour- 
ney, when  the  moon  shed  her  light  upon  Jerusalem,  the 
devourer  of  prophets,  a  profound  sadness  oppressed  the 
fearful  souls  of  the  disciples.  Some,  like  S.  Thomas 
and  S.  Philip,  had  already  during  the  supper  asked 
questions  implying  lack  of  faith;  others  had  rashly 
sworn  that  they  would  go  with  Him  to  imprisonment 
and  death,  but  Jesus  manifested  some  doubt  concerning 
the  steadfastness  of  such  professions,  and  to  S.  Peter, 
who  declared  Himself  to  be  the  firmest  of  all  in  the 
faith,  He  foretold  that  before  the  cock  crew  he  would 
thrice  deny  his  Master.  Crossing  the  dry  sandy  bed 
of  the  Kedron,  the  dejected  company  entered  a  garden 
in  which  was  a  crushing-press,  and  which  on  this 
account  was  called  Gethsemane.  Here  the  soul  of  the 

112 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         113 

Master,  as  He  Himself  said  to  S.  Peter  and  the  sons 
of  Zebedee,  became  exceeding  sorrowful  unto  death. 
"  Being  in  an  agony  He  prayed  so  earnestly  that  His 
sweat  was,  as  it  were,  great  drops  of  blood  falling 
down  to  the  ground."  And  while  the  olive  branches, 
symbols  of  peace,  sole  condition  of  love  and  mildness 
among  men,  rustled  and  swayed  in  the  night  wind  under 
the  immensity  of  the  starry  heavens,  Jesus  tasted  the 
bitter  cup  overflowing  with  the  tears  and  blood  of  un- 
redeemed humanity,  and  resolved  to  drink  it  to  the 
dregs. 

He  was  still  praying  and  His  disciples  were  sleeping 
when  an  armed  band  appeared  in  the  garden  with 
torches  and  lanterns.  Judas,  who  guided  them,  ap- 
proached the  Master  and  kissed  Him,  the  signal  of 
identification  agreed  upon  with  His  enemies. 

The  first  thought  of  Jesus  was  to  sever  His  fortunes 
from  those  of  His  disciples,  and  although  knowing  all 
that  was  to  befall  Him,  He  asked,  "Whom  seek  ye?" 
and  they  said,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth."  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  "  I  am  He." 

As  soon  as  He  had  said  unto  them  "  I  am  He  "  they 
went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground.  Then  asked  He 
them  again,  "  Whom  seek  ye  ?  "  and  they  said,  "  Jesus 
of  Nazareth." 

Jesus  answered,  "  I  have  told  you  that  I  am  He ;  if 
therefore  ye  seek  Me,  let  these  go  their  way." 

Then  the  rabble  advancing,  laid  hands  upon  Him,  but 
Simon  Peter  at  this,  having  one  of  the  two  swords  with 
which  the  Apostles  had  provided  themselves,  drew  it 
and  smote  the  high  priest's  servant  Malchus,  cutting 
off  his  right  ear.  The  resistance  might  have  continued, 
and  victoriously,  owing  to  the  affection  and  confidence 
animating  the  Apostles,  but  that  Jesus  hastened  to  re- 
strain this  first  impulse  of  violence  by  giving  Himself 


114        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

up  entirely  into  the  hands  of  those  who  had  come  to 
arrest  Him. 

"  Be  ye  come  out,"  He  said,  "  as  against  a  thief  with 
swords  and  staves?  When  I  was  daily  with  you  in  the 
temple,  ye  stretched  forth  no  hand  against  Me,  but  this 
is  your  hour  and  the  power  of  darkness." 

To  Judas  He  said,  "  Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  of 
Man  with  a  kiss  ?  "  He  was  then  bound  and  taken  out 
of  the  garden  while  His  eleven  disciples  fled.1 

This  arrest,  effected  in  the  night  between  Thursday 
and  Friday,  the  last  day  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  on  Nisan 
14,  according  to  the  Hebrew  calendar,  was  the  execution 
of  an  illegal  and  factious  resolution  of  the  Sanhedrin.2 
After  the  triumphant  entry  of  the  Nazarene  into  Jeru- 
salem on  the  preceding  Sunday,  Nisan  9,  the  priests 
and  elders  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  many  times  sought 
to  convict  Jesus  of  some  flagrant  violation  of  the  law, 
but  had  not  succeeded,  or  rather  had  not  the  courage  to 
seize  Him  for  fear  of  the  people,  whose  favour  He  en- 
joyed,3 held  a  meeting  on  the  Wednesday  following, 
Nisan  12,  at  which  they  discussed  the  means  of  getting 
hold  of  Jesus.  It  was  finally  decided  to  arrest  Him, 
even  though  illegally,  and  have  Him  put  to  death.4 

This  was  the  idea,  or  rather  the  preconceived  idea,  of 
the  resolution  which  led  to  the  arrest  in  the  Garden  of 
Gethsemane.  There  was  no  idea  of  apprehending  a 
citizen  in  order  to  try  him  upon  a  charge  which  after 
sincere  and  regular  judgment  might  be  found  just  or 
unfounded :  the  intention  was  simply  to  seize  a  man  and 
do  away  with  him.  The  arrest  was  not  a  preventive 
measure  such  as  might  lawfully  precede  trial  and  con- 
demnation: it  was  an  executive  act,  accomplished  in 
view  of  a  sentence  to  be  pronounced  without  legal  jus- 
tification. Hence  the  impudent  mockery  of  an  exam- 
ination accompanied  by  violence  against  the  accused, 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS         115 

the  subornation  of  witnesses  bearing  false  and  discord- 
ant testimony,  the  flagrant  pretext  of  the  capital  offence 
of  blasphemy  having  been  committed  by  the  accused 
when  defending  Himself,  the  vulgar  farce  of  the  exam- 
ining judge's  simulated  horror  and  anger  on  so-called 
proof  of  the  prisoner's  guilt  being  offered,  and  finally 
the  application  of  the  death  penalty  as  the  result  of 
proceedings  invalid  both  from  a  legal  and  ritualistic 
point  of  view.  Futile  and  miserable  acts  of  Pharisaical 
hypocrisy  were,  in  fact,  resorted  to  in  the  effort  to  give 
a  shadow  of  legality  to  the  ferocious  and  sanguinary 
action  of  those  who  acted  with  premeditated  malice. 
Nevertheless,  all  these  measures  appear  to  Renan  to 
have  been  marked  by  a  great  spirit  of  order  and  con- 
servatism ! 5  But  what  measures  does  Renan  really  re- 
fer to?  Was  it  a  justifiable  measure  of  order  and  police 
to  set  aside  the  spontaneous  and  unprejudiced  develop- 
ment of  a  criminal  process?  And  was  it  really  a  fair 
proceeding,  and  not  a  dishonourable  act,  to  arrest  a 
man  not  as  one  who  was  to  undergo  a  fair  trial,  but 
as  one  already  condemned  in  anticipation?  Consiliwm 
fecerunt  ut  Jesum  dolo  tenerent  et  occiderent — they  held 
counsel  with  the  object  of  devising  means  to  take  Jesus 
by  subtlety  and  kill  Him.  S.  Luke  relates  that  the 
chief  priests  and  scribes  had  lost  no  time  in  sending 
out  spies  to  watch  Jesus  and  report  all  His  acts  and 
words.6  According  to  Renan7  these  spies  also  ap- 
proached the  disciples,  hoping  to  obtain  from  their 
weakness  or  simplicity  information  of  value  to  their 
employers,  and  in  Judas  Iscariot  they  found  the  man 
they  sought.  Hence  they  sought  and  found  a  Judas, 
not  in  order  to  be  able  to  effect  an  arrest  that  might 
have  been  the  legal  consequence  of  a  legal  charge,  but 
to  collect  information  and  evidence  to  support  the  pre- 
text alleged  for  the  execution  of  a  capital  sentence,  while 


116        THE    TRIAL1   OF   JESUS 

at  the  same  time  they  seized  the  man  whom  they  had 
determined  to  do  away  with.  It  must  be  observed  in 
this  connection  that  Jesus  could  easily  have  been 
arrested  at  any  time,  when  one  remembers  how  open  and 
frank  His  conduct  was,  and  known  to  be  so  by  all  His 
following.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  fresh  and  defini- 
tive resolution  of  Nisan  12  did  not  on  the  one  hand 
formulate  a  sufficiently  specific  charge,  in  so  far  as  the 
necessary  data  were  sought  to  be  obtained  by  provoca- 
tive agents;  on  the  other,  it  resolved  itself  into  a  pre- 
determined condemnation,  or  was  rather  the  outcome  of 
an  official  conspiracy  to  suppress  the  man  whom  the 
priests,  scribes,  and  Pharisees  so  much  hated. 

But  in  no  case  could  the  arrest  made  at  Gethsemane 
proceed  from  an  order  regularly  given,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  Sanhedrin  had  no  power  to  issue  it. 
It  will  be  shown  that  as  an  effect  of  the  conquest  of 
Palestine  the  right  of  inquiry  and  of  arrest  in  capital 
charges  was  reserved  to  the  conquering  Power  (Rome), 
and  that  the  Jewish  authority  could  not  therefore  order 
the  arrest  of  Jesus,  who  was  charged  with  a  capital 
offence.8  And  in  fact  the  Evangelists  do  not  mention 
any  formal  order  of  arrest  emanating  from  the  Sanhe- 
drin, but  only,  it  is  necessary  to  repeat,  the  intention  of 
the  priests  and  scribes  to  seize  Jesus  by  surprise. 

It  is  the  general  opinion,  as  represented  in  pictorial 
art  from  the  earliest  times  to  modern  days,  that  the 
band  sent  from  the  Jewish  temple  to  arrest  Jesus  in- 
cluded some  Roman  soldiers.  But  with  every  respect 
for  the  authority  of  critics  and  distinguished  artists, 
who,  moreover,  had  no  means  of  verifying  this  historical 
detail,  I  believe  the  opinion  to  be  erroneous  because 
founded  on  an  expression  in  the  fourth  Evangelist  which 
disagrees  with  the  text  of  the  Synoptics.  S.  Matthew 
and  S.  Mark  mention  "men  sent  by  the  high  priest, 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        117 

and  elders  of  the  people  " ;  9  S.  Luke  first  speaks  of  "  a 
multitude  "  and  then  of  "  the  chief  priests  and  captains 
of  the  temple,  and  the  elders  who  went  out  against 
Jesus."  10  S.  John  relates  that  Judas  received  a  band 
of  men  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees; 
and  that  this  band  and  the  captains  and  officers-  of 
the  Jews  took  Jesus  and  bound  Him,11  and  from  this 
passage  it  is  sought  to  argue  that  the  Jewish  authorities 
had  requested  the  aid  of  Roman  soldiers.12  But  as 
regards  the  mention  of  a  band,  this  expression,  though 
it  may  signify  a  number  of  armed  men,  is  not  sufficient 
to  indicate  that  these  men  were  Roman  soldiers,  and  all 
the  less  so  since  staves  as  well  as  swords  are  mentioned 
as  among  the  weapons  carried.  Hence  the  band  spoken 
of  by  the  fourth  Evangelist  cannot  have  belonged  to 
the  Roman  garrison.  Judas,  in  fact,  got  his  escort 
from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  and  they  had  no 
control  over  the  Roman  soldiery.  Moreover,  the  Greek 
word  ormpa,  which  is  translated  cohort  (cohors), 
means  an  armed  band  and  not  a  special  detachment  of 
the  Roman  army.  As  to  the  officer  (x^'apx05)  whom 
the  Vulgate  calls  tribune  (tribunus),  the  Greek  word 
does  not  always  and  exclusively  mean  an  officer  of  that 
rank  in  the  Roman  army  who  held  an  important  posi- 
tion and  had  a  special  residence.  In  its  literal  sense 
the  word  signifies  officer,  captain,  and  most  often,  but 
not  necessarily,  tribune.13  Now  S.  John  may  have  used 
the  word  in  its  broader,  although  less  usual,  sense  as 
referring  to  the  commander  of  the  temple  guard  accom- 
panying Judas  (who  could  not  take  with  him  a  Roman 
standard)  in  the  brilliant  operation  of  Gethsemane,  and 
in  that  he  would  be  in  complete  accord  with  the  Evan- 
gelists themselves,  who  mention  neither  tribune  nor 
cohort.  S.  Mark,  who  also  does  not  mention  this  point, 
speaks  of  cohorts  and  soldiers  only  at  the  time  when 


118        THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS 

Jesus  is  scourged  in  the  Pretorium.14  If  therefore  it  is 
maintained  that  S.  John  cannot  have  used  the  Greek  word 
in  a  signification  different  from  what  was  often  given 
to  it,  and  especially  in  the  New  Testament,  then  the 
term  which  he  employed  must  be  regarded  as  incorrect 
or  inappropriate.  But  this  inaccuracy  or  inappropri- 
ateness  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  always  ignored  by 
orthodox,  and  is  till  less  denied  by  heterodox,  criticism, 
which  assigns  it,  not  to  the  first  apostolic  age  and  to  S. 
John,  but  to  a  time  and  an  author  indicating  a  testi- 
mony less  direct  and  less  precise  regarding  the  facts  of 
the  life  of  Jesus. 

Moreover,  all  the  reasons  influencing  the  logical 
development  of  these  facts  lead  to  an  entirely  contrary 
conclusion.  The  tribuni  militares  or  militum  were  not 
corporals  or  centurions  to  be  found  in  any  company  of 
Roman  soldiers  mixed  up  in  any  riotous  or  police  busi- 
ness. Elected  first  by  the  consuls  and  then  by  the 
people  in  the  comitice,  they  never  numbered  more  than 
six  for  each  legion;  and  held  a  high  position  in  the 
organisation  of  the  Roman  army.15  Now  I  cannot  enter- 
tain the  idea  that  no  less  a  personage  than  a  military 
tribune  clad  in  the  splendid  armour  of  his  rank  in  the 
Roman  army  could  have  found  himself  in  the  midst  of 
a  rabble  armed  mostly  with  staves  creeping  through  a 
garden  like  police,  led  by  a  spy,  commanded  and  urged 
forward  by  four  priests,  perhaps  muttering  Adonai 
elcenu,  Adonai  echad,  in  order  to  ensure  success  of  the 
cowardly  device  by  which  they  had  made  a  kiss  to  be 
the  signal  of  the  betrayal  of  their  victim.  This  rabble 
fell  back  and  stumbled  at  the  first  words  spoken  by 
Jesus  when  they  approached  Him;  they  left  on  the 
ground  an  ear  cut  from  the  head  of  one  of  their  num- 
ber, without  seizing  the  aggressor;  and  the  only  spoils 
they  had  to  boast  of  consisted  of  a  linen  cloth  torn  from 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        119 

the  naked  body  of  a  young  man  who  was  following 
Jesus,  whom  they  endeavoured  to  stop,  but  who  succeeded 
in  escaping  from  them. 

A  centurion,  a  Roman  military  rank  not  unknown  to 
the  Evangelists,  would  have  been  too  much  to  expect 
in  such  surroundings,16  if  even  as  many  as  a  hundred 
Roman  soldiers  were  there.  And  by  whom  could  the 
services  of  this  centurion  have  been  applied  for,  and 
who  would  have  commanded  him  ?  Did  the  chief  priests 
request  him  from  Pilate?  This  must  be  presumed  by 
any  one  who  supposes  that  the  Roman  authority  inter- 
vened in  the  events  of  the  evening  of  Nisan  14  in  order 
to  preserve  public  order,17  but  the  supposition  is  arbi- 
trary and  absurd.  It  is  arbitrary,  because  there  is  not 
a  word  in  the  New  Testament  of  any  Roman  interven- 
tion with  such  an  object,  whereas  any  instance  of  Roman 
interference  when  really  occurring  is  mentioned  with  no 
lack  of  detail,  from  the  moment  that  Jesus  was  taken 
before  Pilate  to  the  end;  and  it  is  absurd,  because  if 
the  Jews  had  not  the  power  of  arrest  and  inquiry  for 
capital  offences,  as  has  been  already  stated  and  proved, 
it  would  have  involved  a  juridical  contradiction  had 
Roman  aid  been  lent  to  an  executive  act  which  would 
have  ignored  and  usurped  the  exercise  of  their  own  judi- 
cial power.  That  the  Jews  in  capturing  Jesus  may  have 
feared  a  popular  rising  is  likely,  and  may  be  true,  but 
that  was  a  matter  that  regarded  themselves,  since  in 
the  case  of  a  rising  they  would  fail  in  their  enterprise, 
whereas  the  Romans,  fearing  possible  disorder,  might 
see  reason  to  prevent  and  not  aid  the  capture  of  Jesus, 
which,  besides  being  an  illegal,  was  a  dangerous  step. 
And  then  the  Evangelist  who  mentions  the  fears  of  a 
popular  tumult  relates  that  the  sole  effect  of  these  ap- 
prehensions was  to  decide  the  Jews  to  seize  Jesus  on  a 
day  that  was  not  a  feast  day  and  to  arrest  Him  with 


120        THE   TKIAL   OF  JESUS 

the  aid  and  intervention  of  the  Romans.18  On  the  con- 
trary, if  Roman  intervention  had  been  solicited,  this  was 
the  place  where  it  would  have  been  opportunely,  not  to 
say  necessarily,  mentioned,  whereas  to  have  kept  silence 
on  the  point  is  equivalent  to  denial. 

Nevertheless,  it  may  be  held  that  some  Roman  soldiers 
found  themselves  at  Gethsemane  on  that  Thursday 
evening,  attracted  thither  by  mere  curiosity.  S.  John 
mentions  the  officer  who  is  supposed  to  have  been 
Roman  because  he  and  the  cohort  alleged  to  have  been 
his  helped  the  captain  and  officers  of  the  Jews  to  bind 
Jesus.19  An  intervention  arising  from  mere  curiosity 
would,  however,  have  no  juridical  value,  and  would  re- 
solve itself  into  nothing  more  than  an  anecdotic  detail 
of  an  idle  and  imaginative  character. 

Let  us  add  to  all  this  the  feeling  of  surprise  so  strongly 
manifested  in  Pilate's  demeanour  on  the  appearance  of 
Jesus  before  him,  and  above  all  his  obstinate  resistance 
to  the  capital  charge  and  the  demand  for  the  death  sen- 
tence that  reached  him  so  clamorously  from  the  immo- 
lators  of  the  innocent.  Had  the  arrest  been  authorised, 
arranged,  and  aided  by  the  Governor,  the  latter  could 
only  have  regarded  the  trial  and  sentence  as  two  stages 
of  the  matter  following  the  arrest,  and  unless  he  opposed 
the  arrest  he  could  not  oppose  its  natural  consequences. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
arrest  of  Jesus  was  not  due  to  any  order  legally  given, 
since  the  Jews  had  no  power  to  issue  such  an  order, 
and  the  Romans,  to  whom  the  right  belonged,  had  no 
occasion  or  motive  to  exercise  it. 

The  supposition  that  any  regular  order  could  have 
been  given  is  further  excluded  by  the  attitude  of  the 
Jewish  authorities  towards  the  disciple  of  Jesus  who 
offered  armed  resistance  to  the  arrest  and  seriously 
wounded  and  permanently  disfigured  one  of  the  party 


,THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        121 

sent  against  Jesus.  Had  Simon  Peter  resisted  a  legal 
and  formal  order  he  would  not  probably  have  gone 
unpunished.20  Simon  Peter  timidly  followed  the  Master 
(timidly  because  he  feared  to  be  charged  with  com- 
plicity), and  was  recognised  by  a  woman  in  the  hall  of 
the  high  priest's  palace,  and  even  by  a  relative  of  Mal- 
chus,  the  servant  whom  he  had  wounded,  but  was  not 
called  by  any  one  to  account  for  the  violence  and  rebel- 
lion of  which  he  had  been  guilty. 

It  must,  moreover,  be  observed  that  the  execution  of 
a  legal  order  could  never  have  been  mixed  up  with  an 
ignoble  betrayal,  agreed  upon  between  the  betrayer  and 
the  magistrates  from  whom  emanated  the  order  of  an 
arrest.  When  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  in  order  to  attain 
their  end,  made  use  of  that  contemptible  yet  dangerous 
weapon  of  the  judicial  police  known  as  the  informer,  it 
did  what  is  still  too  much  done  in  our  own  day.  At 
present  the  penal  legislator,  who  may  not  profess  the 
utilitarian  principles  of  Hobbes  and  Bentham  as  a  phil- 
osophical basis  for  the  right  to  punish,  accepts  the  con- 
venience of  making  use  of  informers  as  one  accepts 
manure  for  enriching  fields,  although  nobody  would  ever 
soil  one's  hands  with  it.21  But  the  priesthood  and  the 
magistracy  of  the  temple  could  not  use  Judas,  the  faith- 
less friend  and  disciple,  while  at  the  same  time  issuing 
an  order  in  the  name  of  the  law;  since  their  law,  dif- 
fering in  that  respect  from  ours,  proscribed  and  con- 
demned as  illegal  such  an  ignoble  act  as  the  betrayal 
of  Jesus  proposed  by  Judas.  The  chief  priests  and 
elders  could  certainly  not  be  accomplices  in  that  be- 
trayal, except  as  private  individuals,  though  crafty  and 
pusillanimous  enemies  of  Jesus.  The  Hebrew  legislator 
is  more  often  a  moralist  than  a  legist,  and  throughout 
the  Hebraic  law  there  is  constant  mention  of  things  that 
are  not  commanded  but  recommended,  so  that  an  im- 


122        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

moral  action  became  also  illegal  if  deprecated  or  cen- 
sured by  the  law.22  Now  the  action  of  Judas,  judged 
by  the  Mosaic  law,  was  in  the  highest  degree  both  im- 
moral and  illegal.  We  read  in  Leviticus :  "  Thou  shalt 
not  go  up  and  down  as  a  tale-bearer  among  thy  people, 
neither  shalt  thou  stand  against  the  blood  of  thy  neigh- 
bour. Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thine  heart. 
Thou  shalt  not  avenge  nor  bear  any  grudge  against 
the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself."  23  Well,  it  is  clear  that  Judas 
hated  his  brother  in  his  heart,  even  his  Master  whose 
arrest  be  obtained  and  directed;  it  is  clear  also  that  he 
stood  against  the  blood  of  his  neighbour  by  exposing 
Jesus  to  the  pain  of  death;  it  is  clear  that  all  this  was 
done  through  hate,  since  he  could  not  have  so  acted 
through  difference  of  opinion  or  from  horror  of  opinions 
which  he  had  hitherto  shared  with  the  other  disciples; 
finally,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  wreaked  on  Jesus  a 
base  vengeance  and  displayed  a  deep  rancour  against 
Him,  whom  the  law  enjoined  him  to  love,  even  had  He 
not  been,  as  He  was,  worthy  of  infinite  love.  Hence 
the  use  that  was  made  of  the  treacherous  emissary  could 
not  have  been  official,  nor  could  the  arrest  have  been 
official,  closely  connected  as  it  was  with  the  betrayal. 

Now  the  Master,  betrayed,  sold  to  His  enemies,  and 
abandoned,  is  bound  and  led  before  Annas.  The  latter 
was  no  longer  high  priest,  but  was  father-in-law  to 
Caiaphas,  the  then  holder  of  that  office.  Annas,  son 
of  Seth,  received  the  office  of  high  priest  from  the  legate 
Quirinus  in  the  year  7  of  the  Christian  era,  and  was 
deposed  from  it  in  the  year  14  on  the  accession  of 
Tiberius.  He  still  retained  great  influence  by  virtue 
of  intrigue,  and  whether  solicited  or  not,  intervened  in 
all  the  affairs  of  the  high  priesthood.  For  fifty  years 
the  pontificate  had  remained  in  his  family,  which  was 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         123 

called  the  sacerdotal  family,  as  if  the  high  priesthood 
had  become  an  hereditary  dynasty.  Almost  all  the 
great  posts  in  the  temple  were  held  by  him,  and  five 
of  his  sons  in  succession  held  the  pontificate.24 

In  the  year  29  the  pontificate  was  held  by  his  son- 
in-law,  Joseph  Caiaphas,  nominated  by  Valerius  Gratus, 
since  these  nominations  were  always  made  by  the 
Roman  procurators  from  the  time  of  the  Roman  sway 
being  inaugurated  at  Jerusalem.  Caiaphas  entered 
upon  his  office  in  the  year  25,  and  only  quitted  it  in  the 
year  36.  His  intellectual  calibre  was  below  mediocrity, 
and  the  power  that  he  wielded  only  nominal.  The  real 
sacerdotal  authority  lay  in  the  hands  of  his  father-in- 
law,  who  reserved  for  himself  the  direction  of  important 
matters,  while  assuring  the  succession  to  the  pontificate 
to  the  members  of  his  family  by  way  of  unlimited  nepo- 
tism, a  system  not  unknown  in  public  offices  in  these  days 
among  ourselves.25  Renan  recognises  the  evils  of  this 
system  of  succession  to  the  pontificate,  notwithstanding 
the  indulgence  which  he  manifests  towards  the  betrayers 
of  Jesus — as  if  the  latter  had  not  been  declared  by 
Renan  himself  to  be  the  best  of  men.  He  believes  that 
the  idea  of  the  arrest  came  from  Annas.26  And  this  is 
not  unlikely,  in  view  of  the  singular  fact  that  it  was 
before  himself,  and  not  before  his  son-in-law,  that  Jesus 
was  brought  in  the  first  instance.27  This  also  again 
leads  us  to  believe  that  the  arrest  was  arbitrarily  and 
not  legally  ordered,  since  it  would  otherwise  be  both  in- 
explicable and  inexcusable  that  the  case  of  a  person 
arrested  should  be  taken  out  of  the  regular  course  of 
procedure  in  order  to  be  subjected  to  the  curiosity  and 
malice  of  an  intruder.  Probably  this  old  intriguer  ex- 
plained his  unwarrantable  interference  on  this  occasion 
on  the  ground  that  he  also  was  an  informer  and  an 
accuser  like  Judas  and  the  others  who,  armed  with 


124        THE   TRIAL1   OF  JESUS 

staves,  and  not  with  legal  right,  aided  the  seizure  of 
Jesus  and  His  indictment  before  the  supreme  Roman 
authority  in  Jerusalem. 

The  whole  action  of  the  Jews  regarding  the  trial  and 
condemnation  of  the  Nazarene  cannot  be  considered 
otherwise  than  under  the  juridical  aspect  of  an  accusa- 
tion based  upon  the  reports  of  informers.  Perhaps  the 
chief  priests  themselves,  the  elders,  the  scribes,  Annas 
and  the  others  did  not  pretend  to  arrest  Jesus  on  their 
own  authority,  but  only  to  get  possession  of  His  person 
in  order  to  send  Him  for  judgment  to  the  Roman  pro- 
curator. The  act  of  Nisan  14  was  not  an  arrest  made 
in  consequence  of  a  regular  information,  nor,  as  our 
own  penal  law  expresses  it,  in  consequence  of  public 
clamour.  Hence  the  priests,  the  elders,  and  the  other 
accomplices  in  the  savage  and  fanatical  vendetta  could 
not  believe  that  Jesus  was  being  legally  tried  when  they 
questioned  and  insulted  Him  before  the  Sanhedrin.  At 
most  they  could  only  simulate  a  sort  of  preparatory 
indictment  which  they  both  desired  and  were  compelled 
to  refer  to  the  Pretorium. 

Caiaphas  lived  under  the  same  roof  with  his  father-in- 
law,  but  it  was  necessary  to  cross  the  courtyard  in  order 
to  pass  from-  the  residence  of  the  one  to  that  of  the  other. 
S.  Peter  and  S.  John  followed  the  Master  thus  far — 
at  a  distance  and  cautiously.  S.  John  was  known  at 
the  sacerdotal  palace,  although  only  a  poor  Galilean 
fisherman — perhaps  because  his  father  Zebedee  supplied 
fish  from  the  Jordan  to  the  sacerdotal  family  28 — and 
was  therefore  allowed  to  enter.  But  S.  Peter  was 
stopped  at  the  door,  so  that  S.  John  had  to  turn  back 
and  ask  the  portress  to  let  S.  Peter  in.  The  portress, 
who  was  a  young  woman,  said  to  Peter :  "  Art  not  thou 
also  one  of  this  man's  disciples  ?  "  He  said :  "  I  am 
not,"  and  in  order  to  warm  himself  drew  near  a  brazier 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         125 

that  had  been  lit  by  the  servants  and  officers,  the  night 
being  cold,  as  often  happens  in  Palestine  even  in  April. 
Annas  meanwhile  began  to  question  Jesus,  Caiaphas, 
who  had  appeared  shortly  before,  being  present.  Jesus 
was  asked  concerning  His  disciples  and  His  doctrine. 
He  replied :  "  I  spoke  openly  to  the  world.  I  ever 
taught  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  temple,  whither  all 
the  Jews  come  together,  and  in  secret  spake  I  nothing. 
Why  askest  thou  Me?  Ask  them  which  heard  Me  what 
I  have  said  unto  them.  Behold,  they  know  what  I  said." 

This  reply  was  the  only  one  that  could  be  expected 
by  him  who  desired  the  death  of  the  accused,  and  who 
perhaps  knew  that  he  merited  such  an  answer.  It 
appeared,  however,  so  irreverent  to  one  of  the  officers 
who  stood  by,  that  he  struck  Jesus  with  the  palm  of 
his  hand,  saying,  "  Answerest  Thou  the  high  priest 
so? " — another  proceeding  also  testifying  perhaps  to 
the  perfect  and  legal  order  observed,  according  to 
Renan,  in  the  procedure  against  the  accused  of  Naza- 
reth! Jesus  gently  said  to  the  man  who  had  struck 
Him,  "  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil, 
but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  Me  ?  " 

The  disciple  who  had  just  denied  the  Master,  after 
loudly  declaring  that  he  was  ready  to  suffer  imprison- 
ment and  defy  death  for  Him,  now  again  approached 
the  brazier  to  warm  himself.  Betrayed  by  his  Galilean 
accent  and  pressed  by  questions,  he  again  denied  having 
anything  whatever  to  do  with  Jesus.  And  he  repeated 
his  denial  for  the  third  time  when  questioned  to  the  same 
effect  by  a  relative  of  Malchus,  the  high  priest's  servant 
whom  he  had  wounded  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane. 
This  man  had  seen  him  in  the  garden  with  the  other 
disciples.  The  cock  crew,  and  S.  Peter,  moved  by  his 
sudden  recollection  of  the  Master's  words,  went  out  and 
wept  bitterly.  At  that  moment  Jesus,  strongly  bound, 


126        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

passed  through  the  courtyard  and  was  taken  from  Annas 
to  Caiaphas,  who  intended  to  re-examine  Him  while  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  being  summoned  for 
another  meeting.29 

And  while  they  are  being  aroused  from  sleep,  we  shall 
collect  the  proofs  serving  to  show  that  the  procedure 
against  Jesus  was  even  more  than  a  great  injustice  and 
evident  illegality. 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  47-56 ;  S.  Mark  xiv.  43-50 ;  S.  Luke  xxii. 
47-53 ;  S.  John  xviii.  3-12.     Only  this  Evangelist  here  mentions 
the  incident  of  S.  Peter  and  Malchus  (verse  10).    He  also  records 
the  query  of  Jesus,  "  Whom  seek  ye?  "  (verse  4  et  seq.).     The 
Synoptic  Gospels  only  mention  the  mild  reproof  of  the  Master 
to  Judas.     One  detail  being  reconcilable  without  difficulty  with 
the  other,  I  have  accepted  them  both.     S.  Mark  adds  to  this 
passage  that  "  a  certain  young  man  followed  with  Him  (Jesus), 
having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  him  over  his  naked  body,  and 
they  lay  hold  on  him;  but  he   left  the  linen   cloth  and  fled 
naked." 

2  The  Hebrews  reckoned  their  official  day  from  sunset  to  sun- 
set of  the  natural  day.     Hence  the  arrest,  the  trial,  the  condem- 
nation and  the  execution  of  Jesus  all  occurred  on  Nisan  14,  which 
commenced  at  sunset  of  Thursday,  April  6,  according  to  the 
calculation  which  follows  below.     According  to  our  calendar 
all  the  proceedings,  therefore,  took  place  between  the  evening  of 
Thursday,  April  6,  of  the  year  29  after  Christ  (783  A.  U.  C.), 
and  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  April  7,  though  according  to  the 
Hebrew  reckoning  all  occurred  within  the  space  of  a  single  day 
— Nisan  14.     For  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  facts  and  dates 
which  I  shall  have  to  mention  farther  on,  I  append  the  follow- 
ing synoptic  division  of  the  time  in  the  last  week  of  the  life  of 
Jesus: — 


THE    TRIAL   OF,   JESUS         127 

April  2,  Sunday i  UP  to  sunset-    Nisa*  9- 

(  After  sunset.     Nisan  10. 

April  3,  Monday j  UP  to  sunset-  Nigan  10. 

(  After  sunset.  Nisan  11. 

April  4,  Tuesday j  Up  to  sunset.  Nisan  11. 

(  After  sunset.  Nisan  12. 

April  5,  Wednesday J  UP  to,  sunset.  Nisan  12. 

(  After  sunset.  Nisan  13. 

April  6,  Thursday j  Up  to  sunset.  Nisan  13. 

(  After  sunset.  Nisan  14. 

April  7,  Friday j  Up  to  sunset.  Nisan  14. 

(  After  sunset.  Nisan  15. 

April  8,  Saturday Up  to  sunset.  Nisan  15. 

Jesus  entered  Jerusalem  attended  by  the  acclaiming  multitude 
on  Sunday,  April  2  (Nisan  9).  The  Sanhedrin  met  to  confirm 
its  project  of  seizing  Jesus  on  Wednesday,  April  5  (Nisan  12), 
if  the  meeting  took  place  in  the  day-time,  or  on  Nisan  13  if  at 
night.  After  sunset  on  Thursday,  April  6,  when  Nisan  14  had 
already  commenced,  Jesus  was  arrested.  Before  sunset  on 
Friday,  April  7 — that  is,  towards  the  end  of  the  day  Nisan  14 — 
the  trial,  condemnation,  and  execution  of  Jesus  had  been  ac- 
complished. From  sunset  on  Friday,  April  7,  to  sunset  on  Satur- 
day, 8,  and  all  Nisan  15,  was  Easter  time. 

3  S.  Matthew  xxi.  45  ;  S.  Mark  xiv.  10,  11;  S.  Luke  xxii.  5,  6. 

4  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  3-5 ;  S.  Mark  xiv.  1,  2 ;  cf.  S.  Luke  xxii.  2. 

5  Vie,  ch.  xxiii.     Similarly  Salvador,  Histoire  des  institutions 
de  Maise,  liv.  iv.  ch.  iii. 

6  S.  Luke  xx.  20. 

7  Renan,  I.e. 

8  Castelli,  La  legge  del  popolo  ebreo  nel  suo  svolgimento  storico, 
Florence,  Sansoni,  1884,  cap.  viii. 

9  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  47;  S.  Mark  xiv.  43. 

10  S.  Luke  xxii.  47,  52. 

11  S.  John,  xviii.  3,  12. 

12  Strauss,  Vie,  torn.  ii.  ch.  iii.  par.  127.     Cf.  LUcke  and  Hase, 
quoted  in  the  same  sense  as  Strauss. 

13  It  is  true  that  in  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament  the 
words  oTretjpa  and  xiAtapxps  are   equivalent  of  the    cohors  and 


128         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

tribunus  of  the  Roman  army  (Acts  x.  1,  xxi.  31-3,  37,  xxii.  24, 
26-9,  xxiii.  15-19,  22,  xxiv.  7,  22,  xxv.  23,  xxvii.  1),  and  that  the 
same  use  of  these  two  words  occurs  in  Polybius,  in  Plutarch  and 
some  other  authors,  but  then  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
such  must  be  the  sense  in  which  they  were  employed  by  S.  John 
in  this  passage,  where  logical  reason  overrides  philological  con- 
siderations, more  particularly  as  S.  John  in  his  Gospel  is  gener- 
ally considered  to  be  deficient  in  philological  and  historical  clear- 
ness. Still,  philologists  may  be  right,  in  which  case  S.  John 
must  be  wrong.  A.  Loisy,  although  on  other  grounds,  impugns 
the  statement  that  a  cohort  and  a  tribune  were  present  at  the 
arrest  of  Jesus  (Le  quatrieme  evangile,  Paris,  Picard,  1903). 

14  xv.  16. 

15  Livy,  vii.  5,  xlii.  31,  xxiii.  14,  xliv.  21 ;  Festus,  s.  v.  Ruffuli. 
They  are  called,  in  fact,  Ruffuli  and  Comitiati. 

16  Cf.,  e.g.,  S.  Matthew  viii.  5-13,  xxvii.  54 ;  S.  Mark  xv.  39 ; 
S.  Luke  vii.  1-10,  xxiii.  47. 

17  Cf.,  e.g.,  Didon,  Jesus-Christ,  ch.  ix. 

18  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  5 :  "  But  they  said  not  during  the  feast, 
lest  a  tumult  arise  among  the  people." 

19xviii.  12:  "  Conors  ergo  et  tribunus  et  ministri  Judseorum 
comprehenderunt  Jesum  et  ligaverunt  eum."  This  work  of 
manacling  the  prisoner  is  indeed  too  ignoble  a  part  to  assign  to  a 
tribunus  militum  of  Rome. 

20  There  is  no  article  in  the  Mosaic  law  corresponding  to  the 
"  resistance  "  or  to  the  "  qualified  lesion  "  of  the  Italian  Penal 
Code  (Arts.  190,  372,  373,  in  connection  with  Art.  365,  n.  2), 
nor  even  to  the  provisions,  somewhat  less  specific,  of  the  Lex 
Julia  de  vi  publica  (Dig.  xlviii.  6)  and  of  the  Lex  de  custodia  et 
exhibiti&ne  reorum  (Dig.  xlviii.  3).  Nevertheless,  there  is  no 
lack  in  the  Mosaic  law  of  clear  penal  provisions — almost  all 
of  the  pecuniary  order — against  wounding,  the  punishment  for 
which  was  assessed  according  to  the  physical  constitution  of 
the  injured  person  or  the  kind  of  blow,  the  manner  of  wounding, 
and  even  the  social  and  pecuniary  position  of  the  sufferer — see, 
e.g.,  Exodus  xxi.  18-22,  24,  25-7;  Leviticus  xxiv.  17,  19,  20; 
Deuteronomy  xix.  21.  Cf.  Maimonides,  Hahobel  vehammezik 
(Of  Lesions  and  Injuries),  ii.  10  ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  iv.  8  ;  Ewald, 
Attherthumer,  p.  232 ;  Castelli,  La  leg.  del.  pop.  ebr.  cap.  v.  On 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         129 

this  question  of  the  illegality  of  the  arrest,  cf.  Dupin  the  Elder, 
Refutation  du  chapitre  de  M.  Salvador  intitule  Jugement  el  con- 
damnation  de  Jesus,  par.  iii.  in  the  Gazette  des  Tribunaux,  9  die. 
1828.  The  chapter  of  Salvador  thus  refuted  is  the  third  of 
book  iv.  of  the  work  Histoire  des  institutions  de  Moise  et  du  peuple 
hebreu.  The  rule  laid  down  in  the  Talmud,  that  the  assailant 
should  remain  in  prison  until  it  was  proved  that  the  wound 
which  he  had  inflicted  would  not  cause  death,  was  therefore  the 
same  as  in  our  own  law.  Cf.  Nechilta,  Nezikim,  par.  6 ;  San- 
hedrin,  78. 

21  Carrara,  Lineamenti  di  practica  legislative  2nd  ed.  p.  373. 

22  Reuss,  Die   Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  d.  A.  T.  par. 
292,  quoted  by  Castelli,  La  leg.  del.  pop.  ebr.  cap.  viii. 

23  Leviticus  xix.  16-18. 

24Josephus,  Antiq.  xxiii.  3-6,  xx.  8-10.  In  this  passage  the 
names  of  the  high  priests  from  the  reign  of  Herod  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  are  given  as  follows: — 1.  Ananelus ;  2,  Aristo- 
bulus  ;  3,  Jesus  son  of  Phabes  ;  4,  Simon  son  of  Boethus  ;  5,  Mat- 
thias son  of  Theophilus  ;  6,  Joazarus  son  of  Boethus  ;  7,  Eleazar  son 
of  Boethus  ;  8,  Jesus  son  of  Sia  ;  9  Ananus  son  of  Seth  ;  10,  Ismael 
son  of  Phabes ;  11,  Eleazar  son  of  Ananias ;  12,  Simon  son  of 
Camitus;  13,  Joseph  Caiaphas  son-in-law  of  Ananias;  14,  Jon- 
athan son  of  Ananias  ;  15,  Theophilus  son  of  Ananias ;  16,  Simon 
son  of  Boethus ;  17,  Matthias  son  of  Ananias  ;  18,  Elionceus  son 
of  Canthera ;  19,  Josephus  son  of  Camitus ;  20,  Ananias  son  of 
Nebedeus  ;  21,  Jonathan  ;  22,  Ismael  son  of  Phabes  ;  23,  Josephus 
Cabi  son  of  Simon  ;  24,  Ananias  son  of  Ananias  ;  25,  Jesus  son  of 
Danneus ;  26,  Jesus  son  of  Gamaliel ;  27,  Matthias  son  of  The- 
ophilus ;  28,  Phannias  son  of  Samuel.  There  were  therefore 
twenty-eight  high  priests  during  a  period  of  160  years.  "  Some 
of  them,"  says  Josephus,  "  under  the  reign  of  Herod  and  of  his 
son  Archilseus  had  a  share  in  the  government.  After  their  death, 
the  government  became  aristocratic,  and  the  leadership  of  the 
nation  remained  with  the  high  priests  "  (I.e.  z).  The  govern- 
ment of  Archilseus  was  called  aristocratic  at  the  time  of  the  war 
solely  because  the  descendants  of  Herod,  except  the  two  last 
Agrippas,  were  not  kings  but  tetrarchs,  and  the  whole  nation, 
divided  into  several  tetrarchates,  had  no  common  head  but  the 
high  priest. 


130         THE    TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

25  Josephus,  Antiq.  xvm.  iii.  2,  vi.  1.     A  Hebrew  writer,  author 
of  a  pamphlet  upon  the  judicial  execution  of  Jesus,  argues  that 
this  act  was  due  to  the  Romans  and  not  to  the  Jews,  and  tries  to 
maintain  that  the  name  of  the  high  priest  Caiaphas,  who  is  only 
mentioned  by  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John    (and  certainly  he  is  not 
mentioned  by  the  other  two  Evangelists)  is  not  recorded  in  his- 
tory.    He  is,  however,  compelled  to  admit  that  Josephus  clearly 
states  that  the  high  priest  Joseph,  who  held  the  sacerdotal  dignity 
from  the  procurator  Gratus  and  was  dismissed  by  Vitellius  after 
the  fall  of  Pilate,  bore  the  surname  of  Caiaphas.     Dr.  L.  Philipp- 
son,  Proc.  condan.  e  supplizio  di  Gesu,  Loescher,1881,  p.  55  el  seq. ; 
contra,  M.  Rosati,  SidT  opusc.  di  L.  D.  Philippson  tradotto  dal  te- 
desco  da  M.  Ehrenreich.  Esame,  Rome,  Puccinelli,  1881. 

26  Vie,  ch.  xxiv. 

27  S.  Johnxviii.  13. 

28  Cf.  Curci,  II  N.  T.,  etc.,  in  S.  John  i.  35  and  xviii.  10, 16.     It 
was  particularly  in  the  southern  reaches  of  the  Jordan  that  fish 
were  most  plentiful,  since  they  generally  went  down-stream  toward 
the  warmer  water  of  the  south.    Among  the  Hebrews  women  were 
generally  employed  as  doorkeepers  of  houses.     Cf .  2  Kings  iv.  6  ; 
Acts  xii.  13  ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  vn.  ii.  1. 

29  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  57-75  ;   S.  Mark  xiv.  53-72  ;   S.  Luke  xxii. 
54-62;  S.John  xviii.  12-27. 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Political  Constitution  of  Syria  in  Regard  to  Roman  Law — 
The  Conquest  of  Syria  by  Pompey — The  Reign  of  Herod  the 
Great,  and  the  Territorial  Division  made  Between  Archelaus, 
Philip,  and  Herod  Antipater — The  Principality  of  Archelaus 
withdrawn  from  the  Latter  and  transferred  to  the  Governor 
before  the  Trial  of  Jesus — Consequences  of  the  Roman  Con- 
quest in  Financial  and  Police  Matters,  and  in  the  Department 
of  Justice — Colonies,  Municipalities,  and  Provinces — The 
Office  of  Governor,  and  of  the  Procurators  officiating  as  Vice- 
Governors — The  Jurisdiction  of  Vice-Governors  in  Cases 
involving  Capital  Punishment — The  General  Opinion  re- 
garding the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Sanhedrin  refuted — Why  the 
Judgment  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  an  Abuse  of  Power — The 
Action  of  Justice  in  Inverse  Ratio  to  the  progress  of  Humanity 
— Why  Judges  Untrammelled  by  the  Spirit  and  Interests  of 
Conservatism  would  not  have  condemned  Jesus — Class  Jus- 
tice and  Political  Offences — The  Sanhedrin  usurped  Roman 
Jurisdiction  in  Order  to  defend  Class  Interests  and  Beliefs — 
Why  the  Vice-Governor,  left  Free  in  his  Jurisdiction,  should 
have  collected  the  Proofs,  and  conducted  the  Whole  Trial 
himself — The  Arrest  of  the  Person  charged  was  also  a  Matter 
within  his  Jurisdiction. 

THE  country  in  which  these  events  occurred  was  no 
longer  anything  but  a  province  subject  to  Rome.  It 
had  been  reduced  to  that  condition  by  Pompey,  who, 
after  despoiling  the  last  king  of  the  Seleucid  dynasty, 
took  possession  of  tbe  whole  of  Syria.1  The  political 
dissensions  and  national  differences  existing  in  this  coun- 
try rendered  it  unsuitable  for  a  sole  and  uniform  organ- 
isation, and  so  its  conqueror  divided  it  into  two  parts, 

131 


132         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

one  consisting  of  free  citizen  districts,  the  other  of  small 
principalities.  A  quarter  of  a  century  later,  Judaea, 
which  formed  part  of  Southern  Syria,  again  became  a 
kingdom  bestowed  by  Anthony  and  Octavian  upon  Herod 
the  Idumaean,  called  the  Great  solely  from  the  fact  of 
his  long  tenure  of  the  throne,  which  only  ended  with  his 
death  after  a  reign  of  forty-four  years.2 

On  the  death  of  Herod,  his  kingdom  was  divided  among 
his  three  sons — Archelaus,  Philip,  and  Herod  Antipater. 
But  these  provincial  dynasties  in  conquered  provinces 
were  regarded  by  the  Romans  as  dependent  in  respect  of 
tributary  administration — so  much  so,  in  fact,  that  they 
were  even  called  procurator  ships.3  The  northern  and 
poorest  district  was  assigned  to  Philip,  who  held  it  until 
his  death  in  the  year  34.4  Galilee  and  Perea  went  to 
Herod  Antipater,  who  reigned  there  as  tetrarch  until 
the  year  39,  when  he  was  relegated  by  Caligula  to  Lug- 
dunum.  The  principal  district — that  is  to  say,  Judaea, 
Samaria,  and  Idumsea — was  assigned  to  Archelaus,  who 
reigned  there  until  the  year  6,  when  he  was  deposed  by 
Augustus,  and  transferred  to  Gaul.5 

In  that  year  the  principality  of  Archelaus  was  taken 
possession  of  by  Publius  Sulpicius  Quirinus,  who  had 
succeeded  Quintilius  Varus  in  the  governorship  of  Syria, 
and  was  taxed  by  him  as  forming  part  of  the  Roman 
province.  This  is  the  celebrated  assessment  of  Quirinus 
which  is  made  to  coincide  with  the  birth  of  Jesus.  From 
that  time  forward,  monarchy  was  abolished  in  that 
region,  part  of  the  country  being  placed  under  the  im- 
mediate administration  of  Rome,  while  the  internal  gov- 
ernment of  the  remainder,  so  far  as  compatible  with 
Roman  sway,  was  left  to  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem. 
The  Roman  administration  was  entrusted  to  a  procura- 
tor cum  jure  gladii,  who  was  subordinate  to  the  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor of  Syria,  and  this  form  of  adminis- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        133 

tration  lasted  from  the  year  6  to  the  year  41  after  Jesus, 
during  which  period  seven  Roman  officials  succeeded  each 
other  in  the  office.6  Hence  in  the  year  29,  in  which  the 
trial  of  Jesus  took  place  and  the  events  occurred  which 
gave  rise  to  it,  Jerusalem,  the  principal  city  of  Judsea, 
belonged  to  a  province  of  Rome  dependent  upon  the 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  Syria,  that  post  being  then 
held  by  Flaccus  Pomponius,7  one  of  the  companions  in 
vice  of  Tiberius ;  the  actual  government  being  exercised 
in  the  name  of  Pomponius  by  a  procurator  named  Pon- 
tius Pilate. 

It  is  necessary  to  insist  on  this  historic  date,  since  it 
forms  the  basis  of  every  research  and  argument  concern- 
ing the  execution  on  the  hill  of  Golgotha.  The  vulgar 
do  not  understand  this  insistence,  and  it  is  thus  we  find 
that,  in  e very-day  life,  to  describe  any  detail  not  re- 
garded as  pertinent  to  the  main  question  they  have  a 
proverbial  saying,  "  It  comes  in  like  Pilate  in  the 
Creed."  The  Christian  Church  insists,  it  is  true,  upon 
the  detail  that  has  given  rise  to  this  proverb,  in  deter- 
mining a  principal  article  of  faith — which  is  the  pas- 
sion and  death  of  Jesus  occurring  under  Pontius  Pilate 
— but  does  not  exactly  take  into  account  all  the  premises 
and  all  the  consequences  connected  with  the  historical 
truth  concerning  the  office  of  Pilate.  For  the  last  nine- 
teen centuries  orthodox  and  heterodox  critics  have  been 
repeating  that  Jesus  was  tried  and  condemned  with  more 
or  less  injustice  by  Hebrew  judges  according  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  that  Pilate,  with  more  or  less  coward- 
ice, gave  effect  to  that  sentence — as  if,  considering  his 
official  position,  he  could,  or  ought,  to  have  done  other- 
wise than  approve  or  disapprove  it.  But  here  appears 
the  old  error  which  has  induced  even  the  most  ardent 
Catholics  to  believe  that  the  capital  sentence  pronounced 
against  Jesus  was  unjust,  but  not  illegal.  A  clear  idea 


134        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

of  the  juridical  constitution  of  the  Roman  province  and 
of  its  consequence  in  practical  working  will  suffice  to 
explain  the  truth  in  this  matter,  which  differs  altogether 
from  the  opinion  commonly  held.  The  civil  institutions 
of  Rome  are  all  framed  in  view  of  the  exigencies  of  war. 
The  language  itself  reflects  this  fundamental  element  of 
their  structure :  hostis  is  at  the  same  time  the  enemy  and 
the  foreigner,  to  whom  no  rights  of  any  kind  are  ac- 
corded; imperium,  which  is  a  word  expressing  power  in 
its  highest  and  completest  form,  is  simply  a  military 
expression ;  equites  are  citizens  of  a  distinct  order  hav- 
ing their  origin  in  a  warlike  function — i.e.  in  the 
mounted  military  service;  stipendium  is  the  perpetual 
war  tax  paid  to  Rome  by  the  province  as  pay  due  to 
the  victorious  army ;  quiritarium  is  called  the  do- 
minion from  quiri,  which  also  signifies  asta.  The  very 
principles  of  private  right,  although  elaborated  by  the 
great  juridical  Power  that  has  made  Rome  the  Mother 
of  Law,  do  not  conceal  the  spirit  of  conquest  and  the 
underlying  idea  of  belligerent  force.  Occupation  is  the 
best  title  to  the  acquisition  of  dominion;  tradition  is 
the  juridical  means  necessary  for  its  transmission.  Pro- 
prietorship conquered  by  arms  cannot  therefore  be  other 
than  full  and  legitimate,  and  the  right  of  conquest  must 
produce  the  greatest  and  most  indisputable  results  of 
force  converted  into  right.8  And  so  it  is.  The  public 
finances  of  Rome  were  all  furnished  by  the  proceeds  of 
war.  To  establish  and  increase  them  Rome  during  seven 
centuries  followed  no  other  policy  than  that  of  making 
war  upon  the  world,  and  where  she  could  not  herself 
exercise  rights  of  conquest  owing  to  the  limited  expan- 
sion of  her  own  population,  she  did  not,  for  that  reason, 
fail  to  render  the  conquered  countries  tributaries,  and 
reserved  to  herself  the  supreme  direction  of  order  and 
law.  Colonies,  municipalities,  and  provinces  are  the  in- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         135 

stitutions  natural  to  her  conquering  genius.  Her  colo- 
nies did  not  arise,  like  those  of  the  Greeks,  from  an 
overflow  of  indigenous  population,  or  from  intestine 
struggles  compelling  emigration:  they  were  means  to 
conquer  new  lands  and  expropriate  them.  Rome  left  to 
the  populations  of  these  lands  the  internal  government, 
the  policing  of  the  towns,  and  judicial  power,  but  only 
in  minor  cases,  retaining  for  herself  the  power  to  make 
laws  and  to  apply  them  in  cases  of  life  and  death.  The 
municipalities  were  cities  enjoying  Roman  citizenship, 
but  otherwise  they  did  not  differ  from  the  colonies,  and 
sometimes  successfully  sought  to  be  placed  on  the  same 
footing  as  the  latter. 

The  countries  conquered  outside  Italy  were  governed 
by  a  system  of  procurators.9  The  province  was  a  farm 
of  the  Roman  people,  and  provincial  soil  was  regarded 
as  the  property  of  Rome.  The  tribute  paid  to  the 
Roman  State  by  dynasties  or  citizens  as  in  Syria  were 
regarded  as  land  revenues  (vectigalia)  due  to  the  pro- 
prietor. Hence  the  governing  idea  of  the  provincial  in- 
stitution was  primarily  financial  in  its  object,  and  it 
mattered  little  that  all  the  provinces  were  not  governed 
in  the  same  manner  or  subject  to  the  same  burdens.  The 
Romans,  those  positivists  of  antiquity,  rejected  in  their 
administrative  system  every  idea  of  concentration  or  of 
blind  and  symmetrical  uniformity,  and  adapted  their 
regulations  to  the  various  conditions  of  civilisation,  and 
to  the  traditions,  wealth,  and  even  docility  of  the  con- 
quered peoples.  Sicily  and  Sardinia,  accustomed  to  the 
extortions  of  Carthage,  were  treated  very  badly,  and 
Judsea,  with  its  troubled  history,  worse  still, — so  much 
so  that  it  had  to  pay  a  larger  tribute  than  the  other 
Syrian  subjects  of  Rome.  These  exactions  were  not, 
however,  made  with  unity  of  system,  being  in  some  places 
collected  by  publicans  and  in  others  by  the  Roman  agents 


136        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

themselves.10  But  the  system  of  regarding  the  prov- 
inces chiefly  from  a  revenue-producing  point  of  view, 
although  involving  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  State  in- 
difference to  their  internal  government,  to  the  policing 
of  the  towns,  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  religion,  and 
even  to  judicial  power  in  minor  matters  in  the  provinces, 
in  no  way  implied  abdication  or  delegation  of  the  su- 
preme exercise  of  public  law,  the  first  and  most  jeal- 
ously guarded  function  of  which  is  the  administration 
of  justice.  It  would  have  been  acting  senselessly  from 
a  political  and  juridical  point  of  view  to  conquer  a  peo- 
ple and  relentlessly  subject  it  to  a  war  tax  while  at  the 
same  time  leaving  it  master  of  the  most  powerful  means 
of  effecting  a  national  redemption.  Such  contradictions 
did  not  enter  into  the  policy  or  legislation  of  the  Romans, 
who  from  the  time  of  the  Twelve  Tables  claimed  the 
exercise  of  perpetual  authority  as  against  the  enemy  and 
the  foreigner.  "  In  hostem  seterna  auctoritas  este." 
The  right  of  life  and  death  is  the  principal  attribute  of 
their  sovereignty  and  was  never  relinquished,  in  order 
not  to  lessen  their  power;  the  rest  they  might  neglect, 
owing  to  the  tendency  of  assured  dominion  to  produce 
easy  tolerance.  "  Apud  Romanes  jus  valet  gladii, 
caetera  transmittuntur." n  It  is  clear,  then,  that  in 
view  of  such  general  principles,  it  is  not  likely  that  a 
Roman  province  like  Syria,  at  the  time  of  which  we  write, 
should  have  the  power  to  try  capital  offences  and  pro- 
nounce sentence  of  death,  even  if  leaving  the  execution 
of  the  sentence  subject  to  the  assent  of  the  represen- 
tative of  Rome. 

It  is  neither  probable  nor  true. 

Were  it  otherwise,  and  had  Rome  only  reserved  to  her- 
self fiscal  power  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  war  tax,  but 
as  regards  all  the  rest,  and  even  in  the  highest  functions 
of  justice,  had  only  claimed  a  simple  right  of  exequatur. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        137 

she  would  only  have  placed  in  the  provinces  mere  rev- 
enue officials  and  procurators  attached  to  the  Imperial 
treasury  administration.  Such  officials  were  sent,  it  is 
true,  but  Rome  at  the  same  time  appointed  to  every 
province  a  governor  invested  with  ample  powers  and 
charged  with  important  duties,  which  could  be  exercised 
by  the  procurators  in  virtue  of  explicit  delegation  (as 
will  be  seen  happened  to  Pilate)  in  the  small  provincial 
districts  where  no  governor  resided. 

Fuller  knowledge  of  the  power  and  function  conferred 
upon  the  governors,  and  procurators  who  acted  in  their 
stead,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  exercise  of  supreme 
judicial  power  not  only  in  its  final  executive  phase,  but 
also  in  its  fundamental  and  most  important  jurisdiction, 
was  reserved  to  those  magistrates. 

When  Augustus  divided  with  the  people  the  provinces 
of  the  Empire,  the  Senate  nominated  as  governor  of  the 
provinces  assigned  to  the  people  its  own  representative, 
who  was  the  proconsul,  and  the  Prince  appointed  to  gov- 
ern his  provinces  citizens  of  the  equestrian  order,  who 
became  governors,  lieutenants,  and  legates.  Hence  the 
distinction  between  ^  consular  provinces  and  presidial 
provinces,  but  the  title  of  president  was  common  to  every 
governor,  while  that  of  proconsul  was  exclusive.  In  any 
case  the  authority  and  the  office  of  the  legate  of  Caesar 
and  of  the  proconsul  of  the  Senate  were  nearly  equal. 
The  difference  may  perhaps  have  consisted,  more  than  in 
anything  else,  in  certain  ceremonious  honours,  such  as 
the  fasces  which  were  borne  before  proconsuls  as  part 
of  their  insignia  of  office,  and  were  at  first  twelve  and 
at  a  later  period  six  in  number,  whereas  the  governors 
never  had  more  than  five  fasces.  The  former  were 
saluted  as  spectabiles,  the  latter  only  as  carissimi.12  The 
governor  of  the  province,  whether  president  or  procon- 
sul, exercised  his  authority  not  over  the  provincials  alone, 


138        THE    TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

but  also  over  foreigners  guilty  of  any  violence,  his  duty 
being  to  purge  the  province  of  every  evil  without  regard 
to  whence  it  came.13  He  had  the  jus  gladii,  or  the 
right  of  capital  punishment,14  and,  says  the  Justinian 
text,  tried  all  the  cases  that  in  Rome  fell  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  prefect  of  the  city,  the  prefect  of  the 
Pretorium,  the  consul,  the  praetors,  and  all  the  other 
magistrates.15  Now  it  is  certain  that  when  Augustus 
suppressed  the  ordinary  jurisdiction — which  embodied 
the  earliest  and  best  results  of  popular  judgment — and 
replaced  it  by  the  imperial  jurisdiction,  the  prefects  of 
the  city  and  of  the  Pretorium,  the  consuls  and  the  prse- 
tors,  had  jurisdiction  in  capital  offences  and  matters  of 
lesser  gravity  which  the  other  magistrates  did  not  take 
upon  themselves  to  decide.16  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
the  president  of  the  province  possessed  the  exclusive  and 
inalienable  power  of  trying  capital  offences. 

In  the  year  19  Flaccus  Pomponius,  whose  predecessor 
was  Lucius  Vitellius,  father  of  the  future  Emperor  Aulus 
Vitellius,  was  President  of  Syria.  Pilate  was  only  a 
procurator  or  financial  comptroller  of  the  imperial  ad- 
ministration in  Judsea.  It  constantly  occurred  that  a 
procurator  was  sent  with  the  president  to  the  imperial 
provinces,  as  the  properties  belonging  to  the  prince  were 
very  numerous  and  extensive.  Hence  when  a  procurator 
accompanied  the  president,  the  former  attended  only  to 
the  interests  of  the  emperor,  and  this  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  he  was  sometimes  called  procurator  of  the  pat- 
rimony (procurator  patrimonii)  or  steward  (magister) 
or  comptroller  (rationalis).  But  in  the  smaller  provin- 
cial districts  such  as  Judaea,  only  a  procurator  was  sent 
who  was  under  the  control  of  the  president  or  governor, 
residing  elsewhere.  The  procurator  acted  as  substitute 
of  the  governor  in  all  matters,  including  judicial  cases, 
with  the  rank  and  title  of  vice-president.  The  Justinian 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         139 

text  contains  many  references  from  which  it  is  known 
that  the  procurator  could  not  exercise  judicial  functions, 
and  consequently  was  unable  to  pronounce  capital  sen- 
tences, unless  holding  the  recognised  rank  of  vice-presi- 
dent.17 The  ancient  commentators  of  the  text  agree  in 
firmly  laying  down  this  incontestable  truth,  and  Cuiacius, 
the  most  authoritative  among  them,  happens  to  refer  in 
his  commentary  to  the  case  of  Pontius  Pilate.  "  On  the 
procurator  of  Caesar,"  says  the  learned  jurisconsult  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  "  is  conferred  jurisdiction  in 
pecuniary  fiscal  cases,  but  not  in  criminal  cases,  unless 
when  acting  as  vice-president — like  Pontius  Pilate,  who 
was  Procurator  of  Caesar  and  Vice-President  of  Syria."  18 

Thus  the  sole  authority  in  Judea  that  could  try  Jesus, 
arrest  and  examine  Him,  and  render  Him  amenable  to 
the  consequences  of  His  alleged  offence  and  of  a  con- 
demnation, was  that  of  the  Procurator  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent, Pontius  Pilate,  but  certainly  not  Annas  nor  Caia- 
phas,  nor  the  whole  Sanhedrin  nor  any  other  Jewish 
authority.  The  common  opinion  to  the  contrary — 
which  reduces  the  Roman  authority,  represented  by  the 
Vice-President,  to  the  mere  granting  or  refusing  assent 
to  the  execution  of  capital  sentences  pronounced  by  Jew- 
ish judges — is  opposed  to  historic  truth  and  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law. 

Renan,  without  attempting  to  prove  his  assertions,  says : 
"  The  action  which  the  chief  priests  had  resolved  to  take 
against  Jesus  was  fully  consonant  with  the  existing  law : 
the  procedure  against  the  seducer  (mesith)  who  sought 
to  tarnish  the  purity  of  religion  is  explained  in  the 
Talmud  with  details  of  such  an  ingeniously  impudent 
character  as  to  provoke  a  smile.  The  Roman  law  did 
not  apply  to  the  Hebrews,  who  remained  under  the  canon 
law  as  recorded  in  the  Talmud."  19 

Salvador  says :  "  The  Jews  retained  the  faculty  of  try- 


140        THE   TRIAL  »OF   JESUS 

ing  cases  according  to  their  own  law,  but  it  was  only  the 
Roman  procurator  that  had  executive  power.  No  cul- 
prit could  be  executed  without  his  assent,  in  order  that 
the  Senate  might  not  have  the  means  of  striking  at  the 
men  who  had  sold  themselves  to  the  foreigner."  20 

But  on  what  rests  the  truth  and  reason  of  this  conten- 
tion? Salvador  does  not  say;  and  Renan,  in  stating  it, 
reveals  his  error,  since  the  Talmud,  which  he  quotes, 
besides  being  a  confused  and  uncertain  authority  regard- 
ing the  traditional  Mosaic  law,  refers  to  the  hypothesis 
of  its  free  and  full  application,  and  not  to  the  period 
and  limitations  of  the  Roman  conquest  and  domination. 
On  the  contrary,  the  texts  that  have  been  appealed  to  in 
justification  of  the  opposite  theory  are  clear,  unequivocal, 
irrefutable,  and  moreover  agreeing  with  the  constant 
logic  of  the  law.  Is  it  admissible  in  fact  that  there 
should  be  a  division  of  one  and  the  same  judicial  func- 
tion between  the  power  of  jurisdiction  alleged  to  have 
been  retained  by  the  Jews  and  the  power  of  execution 
that  was  only  exercised  by  the  Romans?  There  could 
be  no  juridical  reason  for  such  a  separation.  The  judi- 
cial power  is  a  close  union  of  justice  and  force  in  such 
a  manner  that  the  one  cannot  be  disjoined  from  the 
other.  In  the  political  order  there  may  be  force  with- 
out justice,  but  in  the  juridical  order  there  cannot  be 
justice  without  force,  and  in  this  order  knowledge  is  the 
sole  title  to  and  reason  of  power.21  Such  justice  would 
be  a  will  without  authority,  a  soul  without  a  body.  The 
principles  of  Roman  law,  which  were  certainly  not  re- 
nounced when  Pompey  conquered  Syria,  determined  the 
nature  and  connection  of  these  two  inseparable  terms, 
force  and  justice,  knowledge  and  power,  jurisdiction  and 
dominion.22 

In  Rome  the  severance  of  jurisdiction  from  power  was 
only  met  with  in  some  treason  trials  in  which  the  kings, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        141 

like  the  consuls,  nominated  two  extraordinary  judges 
(duumviri  perduellionis)  invested  with  jurisdiction  and 
not  with  power,  and  these  trials,  as  has  been  ascertained 
from  a  careful  study  of  history  and  legend,  were  three 
in  number:  that  of  Horatius  in  the  Roman  year  81, 
that  of  Manlius  Capitolinus  in  170,  and  of  Rabirius 
Posthumus  in  691. 23  But  in  those  cases  the  severance 
happened  in  the  judicial  function  of  one  State  and  not 
between  a  dominant  and  a  subject  State. 

If,  therefore,  the  Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem  claimed  to 
exercise  against  Jesus  legal  criminal  procedure  involving 
capital  punishment,  it  usurped  the  jurisdiction  wholly 
reserved  to  the  Roman  president  and  committed  an 
abuse  of  power.24  Hence  any  judgment  it  might  pro- 
nounce was  unconstitutional,  and  could  only  be  consid- 
ered as  null  and  void.  It  was,  in  fact,  an  arbitrary  and 
violent  act.  Here  some  critic  may  exclaim,  "  But  all 
this  is  nothing  but  a  mass  of  legal  rigmarole.  What 
does  it  matter  whether  any  abuse  of  power  was  com- 
mitted or  not,  if  it  were  the  most  efficacious  cause  in 
consummating  the  work  of  Jesus — a  work  so  profitable 
to  the  destinies  of  humanity?  Moreover,  was  not  the 
real  judge  of  the  innocent  Man,  after  all,  the  interpreter 
of  the  Roman  law  and  authority,  who  washed  his  hands 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus  when  he  might  have  protected 
Him  by  disapproving  the  unjust  condemnation  pro- 
nounced by  His  enemies  ?  " 

But  this  argument  shows  a  fatalism  before  which 
neither  history  nor  right — and  they  are  not  merely  the 
creations  of  pedantic  lawyers — would  have  any  raison 
d'etre.  On  the  contrary,  right  would  be  on  the  side  of 
those  fanatics,  contemporaries  of  Tertullian  and  Irenaeus, 
who  offered  praise  and  thanks  to  Judas,  since  by  his 
betrayal  he  had  facilitated  the  sacrifice  of  the  Master. 
But  whoever  investigates  the  circumstances  and  considers 


142        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

how  deeply  the  arbitrary  judgment  of  Jerusalem  af- 
fected the  destinies  of  humanity,  cannot  avoid  medi- 
tating upon  the  singular  fact  that  in  human  destiny 
justice  should  at  all  periods,  and  among  all  people  claim- 
ing to  be  civilised,  act  the  shameless  and  sinister  part 
of  opposing  every  movement  towards  a  higher  and  more 
fruitful  social  regeneration  and  placing  in  the  hands 
of  unlearned  men  and  conservatives,  weapons,  which  they 
will  use  to  their  own  advantage  for  defending  the  habits, 
prejudices,  and  interests  of  their  class. 

The  dishonour  of  Golgotha  is  the  dishonour  of  justice. 
And  it  has  been  a  wise  measure  to  remove  the  crucifix 
from  almost  all  the  halls  of  justice  among  Christian 
nations,  since  this  sign  frequently  discredits  the  work 
of  the  judges.  The  Pharisees  who  willed  the  great  in- 
justice of  the  Cross  were  only  blinded  by  respect  for 
tradition,  made  powerful  by  the  sole  art  of  hypocrisy. 
The  Sadducees  who  took  precedence  in  sacerdotal  vest- 
ments among  the  illegal  judges  were  conservatives  in- 
terested in  the  prestige  and  fortune  of  the  temple,  which 
was  made  the  central  point  of  the  wishes,  sacrifices,  and 
expiring  forces  of  a  decaying  nation.  The  scribes  who 
took  part  in  the  iniquitous  work  were  only  pedantic  up- 
holders of  the  intangible  law  in  favour  of  the  cause 
called  national,  but  which  was  in  reality  nothing  but  the 
cause  of  the  leading  men  in  the  city,  who  confounded  the 
interest  of  the  nation  with  that  of  religion,  and  both  with 
their  own  political  and  social  interests.  The  justice  de- 
livered by  such  judges  could  only  be  sectarian  because 
Pharisean,  fanatical  because  sacerdotal,  partisan  because 
conservative. 

Other  judges  not  dominated  by  the  same  sentiments 
and  the  same  interests  would  have  dealt  differently 
with  the  inoffensive  and  harmless  bearer  of  the  good 
tidings,  since  the  latter,  though  not  corresponding  to 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         143 

their  expectations,  would  not  have  been  so  much 
opposed  to  their  desires  and  objects.  The  Essenes, 
the  Therapeutse,  the  very  Herodians,  Pilate  himself,  if 
left  free  to  himself  and  free  to  exercise  all  his  legiti- 
mate power,  would  not  have  condemned  the  innocent 
Man.  Pilate  declared  openly  to  the  people,  before  de- 
grading his  own  conscience,  his  own  spontaneous  con- 
viction that  he  found  no  fault  in  Jesus.  Even  Herod 
Antipater,  called  upon  to  exercise  a  supposed  jurisdic- 
tion against  the  Galilean  subject,  refused  to  do  so,  and 
proclaimed  His  innocence.  But  the  useful  and  con- 
venient instrument  of  judgment  is  ever  limited  by  direct 
or  indirect  control,  by  normal  or  usurped  jurisdiction  in 
the  hands  of  political  power,  which  is  animated  in  its 
defence  by  a  factious  spirit  of  opposition  to  any  reform 
which  it  regards  as  a  synonym  for  crime. 

If  the  arbitrary  spirit  and  the  injustice  to  which 
was  immolated  the  inviolable  innovator  of  Galilee 
benefited  the  destinies  of  humanity,  it  must  mean  that 
even  in  the  year  29  and  in  the  holy  city  the  judicial 
function  and  human  perfection,  as  in  every  period  and 
with  every  people,  progressed  inversely  among  them, 
seeing  that  the  more  beneficial  the  work  of  the  founder 
of  truth  among  men  was  to  the  destiny  of  mankind,  the 
greater  was  the  iniquity  with  which  He  was  treated. 

And  humanity  and  justice  will  always  move  in  this 
inverse  sense  so  long  as  the  latter  remains  to  the  former 
the  clouded  mirror  of  the  lean  and  harsh  figures  of 
the  powers  and  interests  of  the  State  or  of  classes,  of 
maj  orities  or  factions,  of  school  or  cloister,  of  palace  or 
market-place,  and  so  long  also  as  the  ministers  of  this 
goddess  of  obscure  and  uncertain  mythology  shall 
not  be  raised  by  force  of  law  and  the  virtue  of  custom 
above  party  motives  as  above  the  spirit  of  conservatism 
and  so  long  as  they  have  the  inveterate  consciousness  of 


144         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

rendering  a  meritorious  service  to  the  country  in  provid- 
ing for  its  defence  by  the  sanction  of  law,  in  such  fashion 
that  judicial  manifestations  may  always  continue  to  rep- 
resent the  last  stage  of  sedentary  repose  and  never  the 
synchronous  movement  of  the  freest  and  most  unre- 
strained form  of  human  aspiration. 

I  am  not  unaware  that  the  justification  put  forward 
for  punishment  is  social  defence — that  is  to  say,  that 
the  guardianship  of  the  prevailing  customs  and  opinions 
of  society  relative  to  the  absolute  and  non-absolute 
discriminates  between  the  permissible  and  the  non- 
permissible,  the  just  and  the  unjust,  the  useful  and 
the  harmful.  But  every  society  is  changeable — there 
must  be  ebb  and  flow.  A  fatal  law,  perhaps  the  same 
which  inexorably  cries  "  Death "  to  man,  says  more 
benignantly  or  deceptively  to  society,  "  Renew  yourself 
or  perish."  And,  nevertheless,  it  should  be  the  aim  of 
social  defence,  applied  to  facts  of  a  political  character, 
not  to  confine  itself  to  the  contingent  and  transitory 
sphere  of  present  customs  and  opinions,  but  to  raise 
itself  to  a  higher  sphere,  more  ideal,  more  constant, 
capable  of  comprehending  and  legitimising  vaster  and 
more  remote  opinions,  and,  therefore,  even  the  aspira- 
tions of  one  man  alone,  in  opposition  to  the  aspirations 
of  a  whole  class,  which  may  also  represent  the  will  and 
the  strength  of  a  whole  nation. 

The  defence  of  a  society  more  advanced  than  the 
Jewish  cannot  and  should  not  rest  upon  the  sole  fact 
of  a  majority  in  such  a  way  that  one  must  count  the 
number  of  rebels  against  a  political  and  social  order  in 
order  to  decide  if  they  are  guilty,  and  should  be 
punished.25  This  is  not  justice,  it  is  arithmetic;  it  is 
not  ars  boni  et  cequi,  but  a  bad  way  of  governing.  A 
government  is  just  if  it  follows  the  will  of  a  majority, 
it  is  liberal  if  it  respects  all  the  tendencies  of  minorities, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         145 

but  justice  is  unequal  to  its  ideal  task  if  from  the  height 
of  a  penetration  absolute  and  not  relative  it  does  not  rec- 
ognise and  tolerate  the  revelation  of  even  a  single  ten- 
dency, of  even  a  single  individual  will,  be  it  of  the  most 
ardent  character,  be  it,  or  appear  it  to  be,  visionary,  such 
as  the  great  revealing  work  of  Jesus  might  have  ap- 
peared to  His  judges.  Social  defence  may  rigorously 
conform  to  prevalent  customs  and  opinions  in  judging 
and  regulating  facts  other  than  of  the  political  order, 
since  such  a  state  of  opinion  is  rooted  in  the  reasons, 
often  intuitive,  and  sometimes  absolute,  by  which  the 
permissible  is  distinguished  from  the  non-permissible; 
and  it  is  less  subject  to  change.  But  the  same  rigorous 
criterion  of  actuality  cannot  be  applied  in  dealing  with 
political  facts,  the  nature  of  which,  by  a  necessary  law 
of  evolution  and  progress,  must  inevitably  be  subject  to 
change.  It  is  only  a  society  unconscious  or  incapable  of 
evolution  and  progress  that  could  provide  for  its  defence 
by  otherwise  understanding  and  administering  justice, 
and  preparing  by  its  judicial  errors  the  glory  and 
triumph  of  its  victims.  No  wound  in  battle,  no  sign 
of  martyrdom,  no  suffering  from  persecution,  will  ever 
add  so  much  to  the  nobleness  and  fame  of  the  heroes 
for  whom  history  claims  universal  gratitude  and  imita- 
tion as  the  sacrifice  made  to  justice,  even  when  mani- 
fested by  the  application  of  existing  laws  to  the  heroes 
sacrificed.  The  beautiful,  immortal,  beneficent  faith,  ac- 
customed to  triumphs,  and  the  great  and  undeniable 
civilisation  superposed  upon  it  for  the  last  nineteen  cen- 
turies, have  no  other  sign  of  glory  than  the  vile  instru- 
ment of  the  judicial  martyrdom  on  Golgotha. 

Israelite  society  still  in  the  bonds  of  theocracy,  and 
yet  believing  in  the  immutable  perfection  of  an  earthly 
kingdom  of  God,  was  convinced  that  in  condemning 
Jesus  it  was  making  a  most  energetic  and  victorious 


146        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

defence,  but  before  long  it  was  destined  to  witness  its 
complete  and  irreparable  ruin.  The  very  Roman  eagles 
which  invested  the  cross  on  Golgotha  with  a  sad  show 
of  authority  were  to  fall  despoiled  of  their  plumage 
amid  the  ruins  of  Israel. 

Meanwhile,  with  the  idea  of  repressing  the  immortal 
work  of  the  Nazarene,  the  heads  of  Jewish  society  felt 
so  much  the  need  of  a  justice  representing  the  interests 
of  their  class  that,  not  having  the  legal  power  to  do  as 
they  wished,  they  arbitrarily  assumed  it.  This  is  the 
evident  motive  of  a  demonstration  which  on  the  other 
hand  would  possess  even  by  itself  all  the  importance  at- 
tributable to  the  determination  of  one  of  the  greatest 
events  in  history. 

Although,  therefore,  due  regard  may  be  paid  to  the 
practical  consequences  of  the  abuse  of  power  committed 
by  the  Sanhedrin  through  its  usurped  jurisdiction,  it 
cannot  be  thought  for  a  moment  that  the  real  judge  of 
Jesus  was  the  interpreter  of  the  Roman  law  who  allowed 
a  sentence  to  pass  that  he  might  have  still  annulled. 
Had  Pilate  himself  received  the  proofs  and  arguments 
of  the  charge ;  had  he  not  found  himself  confronted  by 
a  condemnation  referred  to  him  with  a  false  statement 
of  motives — which  was  not  even  the  statement  on  which 
the  charge  was  made,  as  will  be  demonstrated — had 
his  conviction  of  the  innocence  of  the  accused  been  the 
epilogue  of  his  judgment  and  had  not  conflicted  with 
the  judgment  already  pronounced  by  the  Sanhedrin — 
then  he  would  not  have  sacrificed  the  life  of  the 
innocent  Man  and  would  not  have  washed  his  hands  of 
Him.  In  fact,  but  for  the  usurpation  by  the  Jews  of 
the  jurisdiction — properly  his — in  a  case  involving 
capital  punishment,  he  might  under  the  exercise  of  his 
exclusive  authority  have  had  the  whole  proceedings  of 
the  Sanhedrin  revised,  from  the  arrest  of  Jesus  to  His 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         147 

condemnation.  In  that  case  the  arrest  would  not  have 
been  a  measure  pre-arranged  with  the  deliberate  idea 
of  making  away  with  the  accused,  nor  would  the  whole 
proceedings  have  shown  the  existence  of  this  precon- 
ceived idea,  which  prevented  judges  from  acting  either 
freely  or  reasonably ;  the  control  of  the  proofs  would 
not  have  been  limited  to  an  attempt  which  completely 
failed;  the  terms  of  the  charges  would  not  have  been 
arbitrarily  changed;  and  the  sentence  might  have  been 
the  same  as  when,  without  a  regular  judgment  of  this 
kind,  the  Vice-President  fully  acknowledged  the  inno- 
cence of  the  accused. 

As  regards  the  arrest  made  by  the  band  armed  with 
swords  and  staves,  it  must  be  observed  that  this  alone 
constituted  an  abuse  of  power,  even  had  it  been  possible 
to  substantiate  the  false  and  obstinate  claim  of  the  Jews 
to  jurisdiction  in  capital  offences,  since  arrest  is  an  act 
of  power  and  not  of  jurisdiction.  None  of  the  magis- 
tracies that  exercise  jurisdiction  and  not  power  can  di- 
rectly order  the  arrest  of  an  accused  person:  this  is 
a  measure  that  can  only  be  taken  by  authority  armed 
with  power.26 

Hence  from  every  point  of  view,  and  for  every 
reason,  the  judgment  wrested  from  the  power  of  Pilate 
was  nothing  but  an  act  of  usurpation  and  vengeance. 


NOTES. 

1  64  B.C. 

2  4  B.C.     Mommsen,  St.  Rom.  iii.  133  ;  Le  prov.  Rom.  da  Ces.  a 
Diocl.  cap.  xi.  p.  499  et  seq. ;  Appian,  Syr.  50. 

3  Hirtius,  B.  Alex.  65 :  the  author  calls  them  dynastis  provincice; 
O.  Bohn,  Qua  conditione  juris  reges  socii  populi  Romani  fuerint, 
Berlin,  1876 ;   Marquardt,  L'amm.  pubbl.  rom.  vol.  L  p.  ii.  par. 

XXXV. 


148         THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

4  It  consisted  of  the  districts  of  Trachonitis,  Auranitis,  Batansea, 
Gauloninis,  and  Iturea. 

5  Josephus,  Antiq.  xxn.  viii.  1,  xvin.  vii.  1;   S.  Luke  iii.  1,  19; 
Acts  xii.  1  et  seq. ;  Noris,  De  nummo  Herodes  Antipoe  in  the  Opp. 
vol.  ii.  p.  647 :  there  are  coins  of  Herod  Antipater  commemorating 
the  forty-third  year  of  his  reign;  Dion  Cassius,  55,  25,  27. 

6  The  procurators  were  Coponius  (A.D.  6),  Ambirius  (about  the 
year  10),  Annius  Rufus  (year  13),  Valerius  Gratus  (year  15-26), 
Pontius  Pilate  (year  26-35),  Marcellus  (year  35),  Morillus  (year 
38-41).     Cf.  Mommsen,  Le  prov.  Rom.  da  Ces.  a  Diocl.  cap.  xi. 
p.  500 ;  ibid.  ResgestceDiviAugusti,  p.  124  ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  xvn. 
xiii.  5,  xvin.  i.  1.     For  the  tax  levied  by  Quirinus,  v.  supra,  cap.  ii. 
note  15. 

7  Tacitus,  Ann.  ii.  66,  vi.  27 ;  Suetonius,  Tiberius,  42  ;  Liibker, 
dexikon  v.  Pomponii. 

8  Mommsen,  Abriss  des  romischen  Staatsrechts,  Leipzig,  1893, 
p.  71;    Laurent,  Hist,  du  droit  des  gens,  torn,  iii.;    Fiore,  Tratt. 
di  dir.  internaz.  pubbl.  i.  cap.  i. ;   Cicotti,  La  guerra  e  la  pace  nel 
mondo  antico,  Turin,  Bocca,  1901,  cap.  v. 

9  Stravius,  Hist.  iur.  Rom.  cap.  i.  par.  33  ;  Guidus  Pancirolus, 
De  magistr.  municip.  cap.  iv.  8,  9,  in  Thes.  Grcevii,  torn,  iii.; 
Forti,  Istituz.  civ.  Florence,  Vieusseux,   1840,  vol.  i.  cap.  iii.  ; 
De  Ruggiero,  Le  colonie  dei  Romani,  Spoleto,  1897. 

10  Cicero,  In  Verr.  ii.  2,  3,  7;  Robertelli,  De  provinciis  Rom. 
in  Thes.  Grcevii,  torn.  iii.  ;    Mommsen,  St.  Rom.  iii.  133;  Forti, 
1st.  civ.  i.  3  ;  Marquardt,  I.e. 

11  Tacitus,  Ann.     Cf.  Dupin,  I.e. 

2  L.  5,  Cod.  Ut  omnes  judices,  i.  49. 

13  L.  3,  D.  De  officio  proesidis,  i.  18. 

14  L.  6,  par.  8.     Cf .  1.  3,  D.  De  jurisdict. 

15  L.  10,  D.  De  officio  prcesidis,  i.  18. 

16  L.  1,  par.  4,  D.  De  officio  prcef.  urb.  i.  12  L.  un  pr.  D.  De 
officio  prcefecti  pretorii.     In  these  judicial  precedents,   cf.  my 
monograph,  Sistema  del  processo  penale  Romano,  cap.  v.  and  vi., 
in  Archivio  giuridico,  vol.  xxxvi.  fasc.  3-4,  Bologna,  1885. 

17  L.  3,  Cod.  Ubi  causes  fiscales,  etc.  iii.  26 ;  L.  4,  Cod.  Ad  legem 
Fabiam  de  plagiariis,  ix.  20  ;  L.  2,  Cod.  De  pcenis,  ix.  43  ;  L.  1, 
Cod.  De  pedaneis  judicious,  iii.  3. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         149 

18  Cuiacius,  Observations,  lib.  xix.  obs.  13.     Cf.  Gothofredus, 
Notis.  leg.  3,  Cod.  iii.  26  ;  Accursius,  Commentaria,  Ad  leg.  4,  Cod. 
Ad  legem  Fabianam,  ix.  20  ;  Roberto,  lib.  i.     Animadv.  12  ;  Mer- 
catore,  Notat.  22. 

19  Vie,  ch.  xxiv. 

20  Histoire  des  institutions  de  Maise,  torn.  iv.  liv.  4,  ch.  iii.   More- 
over, the  opinion  is  commonly,  even  universally,  accepted,  be- 
cause repeated  by  all — almost  by  force  of  inertia.     Mommsen 
mentions,  without  any  reference  to  Jesus,  the  common  opinion, 
but  it  may  be  perceived  from  the  incidental  and  fugitive  manner 
in  which  he  alludes  to  the  subject  that  the  great  authority  in  Ger- 
man history  has  not  sufficiently  considered  the  point. 

21  Carmignani,  Teoria  delle  leggi  delta  sicurezza  sociale,  torn.  iv. 
cap.  iv. 

22  According  to  the  principle  of  the  Roman  law,  the  judicial  fact 
consisted  of  five  distinct  acts:  the  summons  for  trial,  by  which  the 
judge  has  the  power  to  call  before  him  the  person  to  be  tried  ;  the 
minor  coercion,  which  is  the  faculty  to  detain  the  accused  person 
and  others  implicated  in  the  case  ;  the  cognition,  which  is  the  right 
and  the  duty  of  inquiring  into  the  matter  of  the  charges  ;  the  judg- 
ment or  the  solution  of  the  controversy  ;  and  finally  the  execution, 
which  is  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence.     Of  these  five  acts  the 
third  and  fourth  (cognition  and  judgment)  are  operations  of  in- 
telligence and  knowledge;    the  others,  summons,  coercion,  and 
execution — are  operations  of  will  and  power — the  first  are  justice, 
the  latter  force.     Cognition  and  judgment  together  create  juris- 
diction, the  summons  and  coercion  together  create  power  (1.  21, 
D.  iii.  5;  1.1,  par.  1,  D.  xvi.  2;  1.  1,  par.  3;  1,  51,  D.  xxvi.  7;  1.  5, 
D.  xlii.  1;  1.  7,  D.  xlviii.  11;  1.  99,  131,  par.  ult.  D.L.  16;  1.  26,  C. 
ix.  9).     It  was  merum  imperium  with  the  appended  jus  gladii  as 
applied  in  the  prosecution  of  criminals,  imperium  merum  et  mix- 
turn  which  also  comprised  civil  cases  (cf.  Averani,  Interpret,  jur. 
lib.  i.  cap.  iii.  n.  6,  10).     The  simpler  and  more  pacific  principle 
now  prevailing  in  the  judicial  function  of  a  State  is  that  there  can 
be  no  jurisdiction  without  power  nor  power  without  jurisdiction. 
The  relation  of  these  two  inseparable  terms  may,  however,  some- 
times be  established  in  diverse  proportions,  and  in  that  case  the 
difference  between  the  authorities  becomes  manifest,  but  is  still 


150         THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

confined  to  one  and  the  same  State,  in  which  the  judicial  function 
therefore  is  neither  mutilated  nor  destroyed,  but  is  harmonised 
and  rendered  compendious.  This,  however,  is  not  possible  be- 
tween a  preponderant  State  and  a  dominated  State,  since  the  ju- 
dicial function  of  one  and  the  other  would  then  become  imperfect 
and  divided.  It  occurs  at  the  present  day,  for  instance,  with  our- 
selves— for  example,  that  the  supreme  Courts  of  Cassation  exer- 
cise jurisdiction,  but  not  power,  so  that  the  necessary  execution 
of  their  sentences  is  not  in  their  province.  But  this  magistracy  is 
grafted  on  the  stem  of  one  and  the  same  judicial  ordinance  and 
bound  by  close  and  immediate  connection  with  the  other  magis- 
tracies, which  are  furnished  with  power  in  one  and  the  same 
State.  Moreover,  the  exercise  of  power  in  regard  to  their  sen- 
tences is  restricted  to  a  simple  executive  and  not  revising  func- 
tion, which  would  be  the  character  of  the  function  which  it 
is  maintained  should  be  attributed  to  the  Roman  presidents  in 
regard  to  the  sentences  of  the  Jewish  tribunals.  Our  Courts  of 
Cassation  are  above  the  tribunals  to  whom  they  send  their 
sentences  for  execution,  but  these  should  be  always  and  faith- 
fully carried  out  without  any  other  intervention  than  that  of  co- 
ercive action. 

23  Livy  i.  26,  vi.  20;  Dionysius,  iii.  21;  Festus,  Sororium  sigil- 
lum;  Cicero,  Pro  Rabirio;  Dion  Cassius,  xxxviii.  27.     Cf.  my  mon- 
ograph quoted,  cap.  iii. 

24  In  the  first  case  the  judgment  is  illegal  and  null,  but  is  never- 
theless regarded  as  having  been  delivered  by  a  recognised  although 
incompetent  judge,  because  prcetor  quoque  jus  reddere  dicitur  etiam 
cum  inique  decernit.     In  the  second  case  the  judgment  is  uncon- 
stitutional and  arbitrary,  and  is  regarded  as  a  fact  a  non  judice, 
because  he  who  delivered  it  nequiter  utitur  permissa  sibi  potestate 
(1.  11,  D.  par.  1,  De  justitia  et  jure).     In  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jeru- 
salem no  recognition  could  be  given  to  the  jus  reddere  as  regarded 
Jesus,  etiam  cum  inique  decernit.     He  was  denied  every  permissa 
sibi  potestas,  and  his  condemnation  must  be  regarded  as  having 
been  pronounced  a  non  judice. 

25  Cf.  my  book,  Del  domicilio  coatto  e  dei  delinquenti  recidivit 
Florence,  Bocca,  1900,  cap.  v.  pp.  78-88,  in  which  political  of- 
fences are  discussed. 


THE   TRIAL  OF   JESUS         151 

26  Varro  apud  Gellium,  Nod.  att.  lib.  xiii.  c.  xii.  Cf.  Carmig- 
nani,  Teoria  delle  leggi,  etc.,  lib.  iv.  chap.  iv.  p.  44  in  note.  For 
the  material  of  this  chapter  two  works  may  be  referred  to  which 
have  not  been  consulted  by  the  author — Lemann,  Valeur  de  I'as- 
semblee  qui  prononca  la  peine  de  mort  contre  J.-C.  Paris,  1876 ; 
Innes,  The  Trial  of  J.  C. :  A  legal  monograph,  Edinburgh, 
1899. 


CHAPTER   XI 

The  Convening  of  the  Sanhedrin — The  Hour  of  the  Meeting — 
Prohibition  of  the  Mosaic  Law  against  Procedure  in  Capital 
Cases  at  Night — Divergence  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels — The 
Exegetic  Observations  of  D.  F.  Strauss — The  Gospel  Narra- 
tive of  the  Trial  of  Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrin — It  is  concluded 
from  it  that  all  the  Proceedings  before  the  Sanhedrin  in  this 
Matter  were  Nocturnal — Significance  of  this  Irregularity  in 
View  of  the  Rigorous  Observance  of  Legal  Forms  by  the  He- 
brews— How  the  Trial  terminated  with  another  Irregularity, 
inasmuch  at  the  Sentence  could  not  Legally  be  pronounced 
on  the  Same  Day  as  that  on  which  the  Trial  closed. 

THE  Sanhedrin  has  assembled,  and  Jesus  is  brought 
before  it.  But  the  proceedings  open  with  a  manifest 
irregularity — the  members,  in  their  haste  to  condemn, 
meet  at  night-time,  a  proceeding  openly  violating  the 
Mosaic  law  which  prohibits  capital  cases  being  tried  at 
night.1  As  regards  the  hour  of  meeting,  evident  but 
reconcilable  divergencies  are  observable  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  Strauss,  whose  work  is  based  upon  a  con- 
tinuous and  inexorable  exegesis  of  the  Gospel  texts,  has 
rigorously  noted  these  discrepancies.  "  According  to 
the  two  first  Gospels  "  observes  this  author,  "  when  Jesus 
was  brought  to  the  palace  of  the  high  priest  the  doctors 
of  the  law  and  the  elders  were  already  assembled  and 
tried  Jesus  at  once  during  the  night-time.  The  witnesses 
were  first  heard,  after  which  the  high  priest  put  the  de- 
cisive question  to  the  Accused,  whose  reply  made  the 
assembly  to  declare  Him  to  be  worthy  of  death.  In  the 

152 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS        153 

fourth  Gospel  the  examination  of  Jesus  also  takes  place 
by  night,  but  nothing  is  said  in  presence  of  the  Grand 
Council.  According  to  the  narrative  in  the  third  Gospel, 
Jesus  was  only  detained  temporarily  in  the  palace  of  the 
high  priest  during  the  night  and  was  maltreated  there  by 
the  servants.  At  break  of  day  the  Sanhedrin  assembled, 
and  then  without  first  hearing  witnesses  the  high  priest 
hastened  to  put  to  the  Accused  the  question  already 
mentioned."  Now  it  appears  unlikely  that  the  members 
of  the  Grand  Council  should  have  suddenly  met  during 
the  night  to  receive  Jesus,  while  Judas  with  the  guard 
had  gone  to  apprehend  Him,  and  for  this  reason 
preference  is  given  to  the  narrative  in  the  third  Gospel 
which  relates  that  the  Council  assembled  at  the  break 
of  day.  But  S.  Luke  does  not  derive  any  advantage 
on  this  account  when  he  says  (as  he  alone  does  among 
the  Evangelists  2 )  that  the  chief  priests  and  elders  and 
captains  of  the  temple  were  present  at  the  arrest  of 
Jesus  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  while  according 
to  the  other  accounts  their  zeal  led  them  to  hold  a  sud- 
den sitting  and  take  a  prompt  resolution.  In  S.  Mat- 
thew, however,  as  in  S.  Mark,  a  singular  fact  is  to  be 
noted.  It  is  that,  after  relating  the  examination  and 
the  decision  taken,  the  two  Evangelists  add  that  early  in 
the  morning  the  chief  priests  with  the  elders  and  scribes 
and  the  whole  council  held  a  consultation.  It  would  ap- 
pear from  this,  therefore,  that  the  Sanhedrin  held  a  sec- 
ond meeting  in  the  morning  because  it  had  first  met  dur- 
ing the  night,  and  that  it  was  only  at  the  morning  sitting 
that  a  definitive  resolution  was  taken  against  Jesus.3 
Certainly  the  detail  mentioned  by  S.  Matthew  and  S. 
Mark  is  curious,  but  the  question  can  only  be  solved  by 
confirming  the  statement  made  by  these  two  Evangelists 
themselves — namely,  that  the  sentence  on  Jesus  was  pro- 
nounced at  night-time. 


154        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

S.  Mark,  after  having  stated  that  the  meeting  of  the 
Sanhedrin  and  the  sentence  occurred  before  cockcrow, 
mentions  a  fresh  meeting :  "  And  straightway  in  the 
morning  the  chief  priests,  with  the  elders  and  scribes 
and  the  whole  council,  held  a  consultation  and  bound 
Jesus  and  carried  Him  away  and  delivered  Him  up  to 
Pilate."  4  Now  it  is  clear  to  any  one  who  studies  the 
language  of  the  text  that  at  this  stage  there  was  no  ques- 
tion whatever  of  the  charges  against  Jesus,  which  the 
Evangelist,  moreover,  relates  had  been  already  formally 
stated,  so  that  the  chief  priests  and  others  merely  met 
for  the  second  time  in  order  to  confer  before  sending 
the  condemned  prisoner  before  the  Roman  procurator. 
The  motive  of  this  conference  cannot  appear  inex- 
plicable, when  it  is  remembered  that  the  council  had  to 
find  out  the  best  means  of  inducing  the  procurator  to 
deal  with  the  charge  that  was  within  his  sole  jurisdiction, 
and  that  in  any  case  had  to  be  presented  to  him  as  just 
and  well  founded.  S.  Matthew,  after  closing  his  narra- 
tive, which  occupies  the  time  between  S.  Peter's  first 
denial  and  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  continues : 

"  Now,  when  morning  was  come,  all  the  chief  priests 
and  elders  of  the  people  took  counsel  against  Jesus  to 
put  Him  to  death,  and  they  bound  Him,  and  led  Him 
away  and  delivered  Him  up  to  Pilate,  the  Governor." 

In  this  second  meeting,  therefore,  the  council  dis- 
cussed the  means  of  compassing  the  death  of  Jesus, 
and  handing  Him  over  to  the  Governor — that  is  to 
say,  to  put  into  execution  the  sentence  supposed  to 
have  been  already  passed  during  the  night.6  There 
was  no  question  then  of  discussing  or  defining  the 
charges  against  Jesus,  since  that  had  already  been  done. 
S.  John  repeats  the  same  particulars  and  concludes: 
"  Peter  denied  again,  and  straightway  the  cock  crew. 
They  led  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  into  the  palace,  and  it 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS         155 

was  early."  7  It  therefore  appears  permissible  to  con- 
clude that  the  transfer  of  Jesus  to  the  Pretorium  was 
effected  in  the  morning,  but  that  the  condemnation  by 
the  Sanhedrin  was  pronounced  at  night. 

S.  Luke  alone  among  the  Evangelists  affords  any 
ground  for  a  contrary  opinion.  But  in  the  first  place, 
the  divergence  of  one  testimony  against  three  others 
concerning  the  same  fact  would  not  be  a  sufficient  reason 
for  preferring  it  to  the  unanimous  attestation  of  the 
three. 

Considered,  however,  with  discretion,  the  divergence 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  present  an  insuperable  difficulty, 
as  it  has  appeared  to  do  to  the  orthodox  interpreters. 
Meanwhile  S.  Luke  agrees  with  the  other  Evangelists 
in  stating  that  the  arrest  of  the  Master  and  His  being 
immediately  brought  to  the  high  priest's  house  occurred 
in  the  evening.8  His  narrative  is  also  concordant  with 
theirs  in  stating  that  Jesus  remained  in  the  high  priest's 
house  all  night,  and  that  the  denials  of  S.  Peter  also  oc- 
curred during  the  night  in  the  same  place.  This  episode 
is  mentioned  particularly  and  with  some  descriptive 
colour  by  S.  Luke,  who  says  that  while  S.  Peter  was 
standing  beside  the  glowing  brazier  warming  himself,  the 
woman  who  recognised  him  as  one  of  the  followers  of 
Jesus  looked  at  him  steadfastly  by  the  light  of  the  flames 
from  the  brazier — which  means  that  it  was  dark  at  the 
time.  It  is  true  that  the  Evangelist,  while  dwelling  on 
these  matters,  only  mentions  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin in  premising  that  it  was  then  already  day,  but  if  it 
be  considered  how  brief  and  hurried  is  the  mention  that 
he  makes  of  that  meeting,  it  may  be  admitted  without 
difficulty  that  it  could  only  have  been  the  second  meeting 
which,  according  to  the  other  Evangelists,  was  held  after 
the  condemnation,  and  that  the  first  meeting  was  not 
noticed  by  S.  Luke,  as  he  thought  it  sufficient  to  record 


156         THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

the  fact  of  Jesus  having  been  sentenced  to  death  in  men- 
tioning the  second  conference  of  the  Sanhedrin.  In 
fact,  while  the  other  Evangelists  refer  to  two  meetings, 
S.  Luke  only  speaks  of  one,  so  that  he  must  certainly 
have  omitted  to  mention  one  of  them.  Therefore,  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  set  aside  the  explicit  testimony  of 
three  witnesses,  notwithstanding  the  evident  omission 
made  by  a  fourth,  the  affirmation  that  the  trial  of  Jesus 
was  held  at  night  in  violation  of  the  express  prohibition 
of  the  Mosaic  law  must  be  fully  maintained. 

S.  Luke  says  textually :  "  And  as  soon  as  it  was  day, 
the  assembly  of  the  people  was  gathered  together,  both 
chief  priests  and  scribes;  and  they  led  Him  away  into 
their  council,  saying,  If  Thou  art  the  Christ  tell  us.  But 
He  said  unto  them,  If  I  tell  you,  ye  will  not  believe: 
and  if  I  ask  you,  ye  will  not  answer.  But  from  hence- 
forth shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  power  of  God.  And  they  all  said,  Art  Thou 
the  Son  of  God?  And  He  said  unto  them,  Ye  say  that 
I  am.  And  they  said,  What  further  need  have  we  of  wit- 
ness? for  ourselves  have  heard  from  His  own  mouth. 
And  the  whole  company  of  them  rose  up  and  brought 
Him  before  Pilate."  9 

It  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  transfer  from 
the  Sanhedrin  to  the  Pretorium  was  immediate,  and 
that  there  is  no  ground  therefore  for  supposing  that  a 
third  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  may  have  been  held. 
Hence  it  follows  that  the  audience  of  which  S.  Luke 
omitted  to  make  mention  was  the  first  meeting,  the  one 
at  which  Jesus  was  condemned,  and  not  the  subsequent 
consultation  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  Him  over  to 
Pilate.  It  is  moreover  equally  evident  that  it  is  not 
recorded  in  S.  Luke's  account  that  the  Sanhedrin  on 
this  occasion  pronounced  any  condemnation — they  met 
simply  to  refer  the  case  to  Pilate.  The  particulars 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        157 

narrated  by  S.  Luke  of  the  words  then  spoken  by  Jesus 
and  the  replies  given  by  members  of  the  council  are  not 
mentioned  by  the  other  Evangelists,  and  are  simply  a 
necessary  addition  made  by  S.  Luke. 

But  this  is  not  sufficient.  Here,  in  S.  Luke's  account, 
it  is  not  Caiaphas  who  interrogates,  whereas  according 
to  the  narration  of  the  other  Evangelists  concerning  the 
first  meeting  of  the  council  the  examiner  was  the  high 
priest — as  it  should  have  been.  We  find  from  S.  Luke 
that  all  of  those  present  at  the  second  meeting  asked 
questions  of  Jesus  on  their  own  account,  as,  later  on, 
the  same  men  mocked  at  Jesus  on  the  cross,  saying, 
"  He  saved  others ;  Himself  He  cannot  save.  Let  the 
Christ,  the  King  of  Israel,  now  come  down  from  the 
cross  that  we  may  see  and  believe."  10 

Yet,  again,  S.  Luke,  neither  in  his  account  above 
quoted,  nor  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel,  makes  mention  of 
the  two  false  witnesses  who  were  also  examined.  He 
simply  says,  always  in  the  way  of  epilogue,  that  those 
present  asked  what  need  was  there  of  further  witnesses, 
which  is  worth  remembering,  showing  as  it  does  that 
even  according  to  S.  Luke  some  witnesses  must  have 
been  heard  by  the  Sanhedrin.  It  is  further  to  be 
observed  that  S.  Luke  mentions  nothing  of  the  adjura- 
tion addressed  by  the  high  priest  to  Jesus  at  His 
examination  before  the  Sanhedrin,  nor  the  scene  of  the 
high  priest  rending  his  garments,  of  which  concordant 
narrations  are  given  by  the  other  three  Evangelists  in 
mentioning  the  trial. 

Here  is  the  full  account  from  the  moment  of  the  arrest 
of  Jesus  and  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin :  "  And 
they  seized  Him  and  led  Him  away,  and  brought  Him 
unto  the  high  priest's  house.  But  Peter  followed  afar 
off.  And  when  they  had  kindled  a  fire  in  the  midst 
qf  the  court,  and  had  sat  down  together,  Peter  sat  in 


158        THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

the  midst  of  them.  And  a  certain  maid  seeing  him  as 
he  sat  in  the  light  of  the  fire,  and  looking  steadfastly 
upon  him,  said,  This  man  also  was  with  Him.  But 
he  denied,  saying,  Woman,  I  know  Him  not.  And  after 
a  little  while  another  saw  him  and  said,  Thou  also  art 
one  of  them.  But  Peter  said,  Man,  I  am  not.  And 
after  the  space  of  about  one  hour  another  confidently 
affirmed,  Of  a  truth  this  man  also  was  with  Him,  for 
he  is  a  Galilean.  But  Peter  said,  Man,  I  know  not 
what  thou  sayest.  And  immediately,  while  he  yet  spoke, 
the  cock  crew.  And  the  Lord  turned  and  looked  upon 
Peter,  and  Peter  remembered  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how 
that  He  had  said  unto  him,  Before  the  cock  crow  this 
day  thou  shalt  deny  Me  thrice.  And  he  went  out  and 
wept  bitterly.  And  the  men  that  held  Jesus  mocked 
Him  and  beat  Him.  And  they  blindfolded  Him  and 
asked  Him,  saying,  Prophesy,  who  is  he  that  struck 
Thee?  And  many  other  things  spake  they  against 
Him,  reviling  Him.  And  as  soon  as  it  was  day  the 
assembly  of  the  elders  of  the  people  was  gathered  to- 
gether, both  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  they  led  Him 
away  into  their  council,  saying,  If  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
tell  us."  " 

We  see  from  the  above  that  S.  Luke  adds  to  the  ac- 
count of  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin.  He  does  not 
omit  to  mention  the  blows  and  other  affronts  suffered 
by  Jesus,  but  says  nothing  whatever  of  the  procedure, 
nor  of  the  questions  of  Caiaphas,  nor  of  his  own  im- 
pressions regarding  the  action  of  the  Jews  in  suddenly 
bringing  a  trumped-up  charge  against  Jesus.  Neither 
does  he  say  a  word  concerning  the  false  witnesses,  nor 
of  the  pronouncement  of  condemnation;  all  this  is  com- 
pressed into  a  single  meagre  reference  dealing  with  the 
second  and  first  meetings  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the  latter 
being  held  in  the  prohibited  hours  of  the  night. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         159 

It  is  fitting  that  we  should  have  dwelt  upon  this 
irregularity  of  form,  which  would  be  of  very  small  im- 
portance in  itself  were  we  not  dealing  with  the  judges 
of  Jerusalem,  rigorists  and  superstitious  to  excess  in 
their  pedantic  deference  towards  every  minutiae  of  form 
imposed  by  the  law,  and  all  the  more  ready  therefore 
to  compound  for  the  violation  of  one  of  its  most  explicit 
and  severe  provisions  when,  in  exercising  justice,  they 
desired  to  confound  the  rancour  of  private  vengeance 
with  devotion  to  the  national  glory.  To  equitable  and 
merciful  judges  all  may  be  forgiven;  to  judges  of  bad 
faith,  nothing.  In  the  case  of  the  latter,  the  inobserv- 
ance  of  form  is  not,  as  with  the  former,  a  matter  of 
extrinsic  error  not  prejudicially  affecting  the  judgment 
to  be  delivered,  which  under  whatever  form  would  always 
be  the  same,  since  the  judges  pronouncing  it  would  be 
guided  by  the  sure  rule  of  conscience ;  it  is  violence  which 
overthrows  and  tramples  upon  the  obstacles  expressly 
raised  against  arbitrary  procedure.  The  judges  of 
Jesus  illegally  hastened  His  condemnation  in  order  that 
there  might  not  be  a  demonstration  of  popular  feeling 
in  His  favour,  but  this  motive  is  a  revelation  of  the 
arbitrary,  factious,  and  unpopular  sentence  predeter- 
mined by  these  judges.  Otherwise  they  would  not  have 
feared  and  prevented,  but  would  willingly  have  wel- 
comed and  deferred  to  a  spontaneous  public  manifesta- 
tion, whether  favouring  or  opposing  their  own  ideas  on 
the  question  of  the  trial.  A  few  hours  later  these  same 
judges  showed  that  they  did  not  disdain  popular  mani- 
festations regarding  their  judicial  proceedings  when,  in 
the  Pretorium,  they  incited  the  people  against  Jesus. 
And  then  what  an  excellent  counsellor  is  Time!  How 
much  may  not  be  rectified  in  the  space  even  of  one  short 
hour!  How  many  phantoms  treated  as  realities  in  the 
darkness  of  night  are  not  dissolved  by  the  first  rays  of 


160        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  sun!  How  many  decisions  are  not  recognised  as 
unjust  when  there  has  been  time  for  self-examination! 
How  many  opinions  that  once  appeared  infallible  and 
eternal  do  not  fall  at  the  unforeseen  and  unexpected 
shock  of  other  views ! 

But  as  the  trial  commenced  with  one  irregularity,  so 
it  was  destined  to  end  with  another. 

The  Mosaic  law  not  only  prohibited  capital  sentences 
being  pronounced  at  night,  but  forbade  with  the  same 
rigour  and  for  the  same  reason  that  sentence  should  be 
pronounced  on  the  same  day  as  that  on  which  the  trial 
began.12  The  judges  of  the  Sanhedrin  openly  violated 
this  prohibition,  and  thus  again  made  manifest  how  false 
and  mendacious  was  their  ostentatious  profession  of 
obedience  to  the  law,  wherein  they  showed  themselves 
to  be  intolerant  and  inexorable  in  denouncing  illegal  but 
not  immoral  acts.  It  is  true  that  the  day  following 
was  Easter,  and  that  the  proceedings  could  not  there- 
fore have  continued,  but  they  might  have  been  suspended, 
instead  of  violating  a  rule  of  justice  which  prohibited 
sentence  being  passed  on  the  same  day  as  the  trial,  in 
order  to  respect  a  merely  superstitious  observance — that 
of  the  sanctification  of  Easter. 

But  it  was  decided  that  Jesus  should  be  dealt  with 
summarily,  and  this  obstinate  and  cruel  resolve  was  the 
sole  law  that  guided  the  most  formal  judges  in  history. 

Now  let  us  enter  the  nocturnal  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  so  far  as  the  darkness  of  night  and  of  the  nineteen 
centuries  that  have  since  rolled  by  may  permit,  let  us 
see  how  that  assembly  was  constituted. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         161 


NOTES 

1  Sanhedrin,  32.     In  pecuniary  cases  the  trial  begins  during 
the  daytime  and  may  finish  at  night.     In  capital  cases  the  trial 
must  commence  and  end  in  the  course  of  the  day  (Mishna,  n.  7). 
Cf.  I.  J.  M.  Rabbinowicz,  Legislation  criminelle  du  Talmud, 
Paris,  1876,  p.  79. 

2  xxvi.  52. 

3  Vie,  torn.  ii.  ch.  iii.  par.  125. 

4  xv.  1. 

5  S.  Luke  xxvii.  1,  2. 

6  The  idea  of  Strauss   (I.e.),  although  only  expressed  as  an 
hypothesis,  is  not  excluded.     Strauss  says:  "Unless  it  is  meant 
to  affirm  that  to  the  death  sentence  already  pronounced  was 
joined,  on  the  following  morning,  the  decision  to  hand  over 
Jesus  to  Pilate — or  in  other  words  that  the  Sanhedrin,  having 
already  pronounced  sentence  of  death,  deliberated  upon  the 
means  of  executing  it." 

7  xviii.  27,  28. 

8  xxii.  54. 

9  xxii.  66-71,  xxiii.  1. 

10  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  41,  42;  S.  Mark  xv.  31. 

11  S.  Luke  xxii.  54-66. 

12  Sanhedrin,  32.     "  In  pecuniary  cases  a  trial  may  end  the 
same  day  as  it  began.     In  capital  cases  acquittal  may  be  pro- 
nounced the  same  day,  but  the  pronouncing  of  sentence  of  death 
must  be  deferred  until  the  following  day  in  the  hope  that  some 
argument  may  meanwhile  be  discovered  in  favor  of  the  ac- 
cused "  (Mishna,  n.  8). 


CHAPTER   XII 

The  Constitution  of  the  Sanhedrin — Historical  Lacunes  and 
Conjectures — The  Biblical  Judges — The  King  and  the 
Elders  and  Judges — The  Institutions  of  David  and  Jehosh- 
aphat — Mention  in  Deuteronomy  of  a  Supreme  Magistracy 
at  Jerusalem — Necessity  of  consulting  the  Talmud  for  deter- 
mining the  Hebraic  Judicial  Organisation — Tribunals  of 
Three  Grades — The  Capital  Jurisdiction  of  the  Grand 
Sanhedrin  and  its  Particular  Attributions — The  Nasi,  the 
Scribes,  the  Shoterim — Suppression  of  the  Greater  Priv- 
ileges of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  Time  of  Jesus. 

THERE  are  no  historical  data  affording  the  means  of 
reconstructing  the  judicial  organisation  of  the  Hebrews 
at  the  time  of  these  events. 

The  legislator  of  Deuteronomy  lays  down  the  obliga- 
tion of  instituting  judges  and  executors  of  the  law  in 
every  city,  and  recommends  them  to  administer  justice 
without  respect  for  persons,1  but  gives  no  directions  con- 
cerning the  manner  of  instituting  and  regulating  the 
order  and  functions  of  judges.  Evidently  Deuteron- 
omy must  refer  to  some  already  existing  institutions, 
based  on  custom  and  tradition,  which  it  was  thought 
unnecessary  to  mention.  If  the  inquiry  is  extended  to 
all  the  laws  of  Scripture,  it  may  be  inferred  that  at 
a  period  when  all  supreme  power  was  exercised  by  the 
heads  of  tribes,  who  bore  the  biblical  title  of  judges,  all 
judicial  power  resided  in  them.  But  this  is  only  an 
induction,  not  a  statement  of  fact.  And  rather  less  is 
any  conclusion  to  be  arrived  at  upon  the  hypothesis  that 

162 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         163 

under  the  government  of  the  Kings  the  latter  were  the 
judges  of  the  Hebrew  people.  Certain  facts  in  the  life 
of  David,  the  celebrated  judgment  of  King  Solomon, 
the  request  made  by  the  people  to  Samuel  that  they 
might  have  a  king  to  judge  them,  and  the  appeal  made 
by  a  widow  to  King  Jehoram  for  justice  would  seem 
to  furnish  safe  historical  data  in  support  of  such  an 
hypothesis.2  But  the  fact  that  Jezebel  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  Naboth  was  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  elders  in  order  to  obtain  pronouncement 
of  an  unjust  sentence,  would  rather  justify  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  judges  depended  upon  a  council  of  elders,3 
and  if  the  biblical  chronicler  is  to  be  believed,  King 
David  himself  chose  from  among  the  Levites  six  thou- 
sand officers  of  justice,  while  King  Jehoshaphat  insti- 
tuted judges  in  all  the  cities  of  Judaea  and  a  sort  of 
supreme  tribunal  at  Jerusalem.4 

The  compiler  of  Deuteronomy,  who,  like  all  Levitical 
legislators,  does  not  follow  a  logical  order  but  frequently 
introduces  among  ordinances  of  the  law,  exhortations  in 
the  nature  of  recommendations,  or  simply  passages  of 
narrative,  makes  at  one  point,  and  this  comes  somewhat 
in  the  nature  of  a  surprise,  the  statement  that  at 
Jerusalem  there  had  arisen  a  supreme  judicial  power  to 
which  all  the  tribunals  of  the  other  cities  were  required 
to  refer  any  civil  and  criminal  cases  which  they  were 
incompetent  to  deal  with.5  The  compiler  does  not, 
however,  define  this  question  of  capacity,  nor  say  what 
was  the  constitution  of  the  supreme  judicial  power. 

In  view  of  the  silence  and  uncertainty  of  biblical 
texts,  the  only  course  to  follow  is  to  admit,  with  the 
doctors  of  the  Talmud,  that  side  by  side  with  the  writ- 
ten law  there  existed  a  traditional  law  founded  upon 
custom  to  which  many  Mosaic  regulations  referred. 
The  Talmudists  have  maintained  that  a  traditional  law 


164        THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

subsisted  from  the  most  ancient  times,  and  that  this 
has  been  collated  in  their  compilations.  Some  learned 
inquirers  contest  the  correctness  of  this  affirmation,  but 
the  divergence  ceases  at  a  certain  point,  since  it  is  ad- 
mitted by  the  learned  that  the  Talmudic  compilations 
do  present  the  Mosaic  law  such  as  it  had  become  in  the 
last  days  of  the  Jewish  State;  6  and  it  was  just  at  the 
beginning  of  that  period  that  the  events  of  which  we 
treat  occurred. 

Now,  according  to  the  Talmud,  the  tribunals  were  of 
three  grades:  The  first  was  the  Great  Sanhedrin,  which 
was  a  senate  of  elders  residing  in  Jerusalem  and  consist- 
ing of  71  magistrates.  It  exercised  the  highest  au- 
thority, and  was  assisted,  or  rather  replaced  in  cases  of 
small  importance,  by  two  other  Sanhedrins,  each  con- 
sisting of  23  judges.  A  second  order  of  tribunals  was 
that  of  the  Minor  Sanhedrins,  distinct  from  the  coadju- 
tors, also  composed  of  23  judges,  instituted  in  populous 
towns  containing  at  least  120  adult  male  inhabitants. 
The  third  order  was  that  of  the  lower  tribunals,  formed 
by  three  judges  each.7 

The  Sanhedrins  were  composed  of  priests  and  lay- 
men, but  might  also  consist  of  laymen  alone.  To  be 
elected  to  them  it  was  necessary  to  be  of  good  birth, 
to  have  a  physical  appearance  inspiring  reverence,  to 
have  children,  and  not  to  be  of  too  advanced  age. 
Blind  men,  eunuchs,  fowlers,  dice-players,  and  those  who 
in  the  Sabbatic  year  had  traded  in  merchandise  8  were 
not  eligible.  Attached  to  nearly  every  Sanhedrin  were 
students  divided  into  three  classes  and  rising  gradually 
to  higher  grades.  They  acquired  judicial  practice  and 
applied  themselves  to  the  study  of  law  and  procedure. 
The  magistracy  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  had  the  power 
of  promoting  members  to  its  own  body  and  to  the  two 
lesser  Sanhedrins  by  seniority  and  by  merit,  and  these 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS        165 

promotions  were  made  by  the  rite  of  the  imposition  of 
hands.  The  Great  Sanhedrin  also  exercised  a  control 
over  the  organisation  and  functions  of  the  other  San- 
hedrins.9 

The  Great  Sanhedrin  was  directed  by  a  president 
(nasi)  and  a  vice-president  (ab  beth  din).  The  minor 
Sanhedrins  from  time  to  time  nominated  as  their  presi- 
dent the  judge  whom  they  deemed  most  worthy.  Two 
scribes,  doctors  of  the  law,  were  present  at  each  sitting 
and  compiled  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings.10  No  form 
of  defence  was  permitted,  and  this  can  be  easily  imagined 
seeing  that  the  religious  despotism  which  was  bound  up 
with  the  Jewish  theocracy  was  founded  on  belief  in  the 
direct  action  of  God  in  all  human  affairs.  The  magis- 
trate who  judged  in  the  name  and  in  the  place  of  God 
desired  obedience,  and  did  not  suffer  discussion.11  Hence 
there  were  no  advocates,  there  was  no  verbal  eloquence 
except  that  of  the  prophets,  who  were  the  sole  orators 
in  Hebrew  life,  but  who  were  never  allowed  to  appear  as 
patrons  of  accused  persons.  Indeed,  they  were  them- 
selves not  unfrequently  in  the  position  of  defendants. 
The  execution  of  sentences,  and  probably  all  the  police 
work  of  legal  procedure,  was  entrusted  to  officers  of 
justice  called  shoterim.12  The  men  who  arrested  Jesus 
were  perhaps,  at  least  in  part,  shoterim  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
The  jurisdiction  of  this  magistracy  was  concerned  before 
any  other  duty  with  the  election  of  the  king,13  in  which, 
however,  it  sometimes  failed,  as  we  read  in  the  first  book 
of  Samuel  that  the  people,  dissatisfied  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sons  of  that  prophet,  demanded  a  king, 
which  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  for  some  time  a  king 
had  been  wanting.  And  in  such  periods  of  interregnum 
or  vacancy  the  whole  government  was  centred  in  the 
Sanhedrin.  It  was  therefore  within  its  competency  to 
declare  war,  to  enlarge  the  city  of  Jerusalem  and  the 


166        THE    TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

courts  of  the  temple,  to  submit  women  suspected  of 
adultery  to  the  miraculous  water  test,  to  sentence  to 
extermination  a  tribe  or  city  guilty  of  becoming  converts 
to  another  religion,  to  impeach  the  high  priest  or  a 
rebellious  judge,  and  finally  to  sentence  a  false  prophet 
to  death.14 

Jesus,  the  prophet  of  truth,  fell  under  this  last-named 
head  of  the  competency  of  the  Sanhedrin,  but  it  must 
be  remembered  that  this  supreme  and  unconditional 
authority  had  been  abolished  by  the  fact  of  the  Roman 
conquest  and  had  been  transferred  to  the  conquering 
State. 

In  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same  cause  the 
Sanhedrin  had  lost  all  competency  in  the  election  of 
a  king,  and  in  fact  Herod  the  Great,  was  only  nom- 
inated king  in  consequence  of  his  humble  solicitations 
to  Anthony  and  Octavian  at  Rome.  Archelaus,  who 
was  the  last  King  of  Judsea,  added  to  Samaria  and 
Idumea,  was  not  otherwise  nominated  on  his  father's 
death,  while  his  brothers  Philip  and  Herod  Antipater 
were  in  like  manner  nominees  of  Rome.  When  Archelaus 
was  superseded  by  Publius  Sulpicius  Quirinus,  to  whom 
was  committed,  as  first  Governor  of  Syria,  the  institu- 
tion of  the  new  province,  the  Great  Sanhedrin  might  as 
a  consolation  recall  its  ancient  privilege  of  electing  the 
kings,  but  this  did  not  confer  upon  it  the  faculty  of 
nominating  one,  and  this  serves  to  prove  once  more  how 
greatly  the  new  dominion  had  cut  down  the  chief  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Jewish  authority.  After  the  arrival 
of  the  Roman  eagles,  the  supreme  magistracy  of  Jeru- 
salem might  have  immersed  the  woman  suspected  of 
adultery  in  all  the  miraculous  water  the  Jordan  con- 
tained, it  might  have  enlarged  the  holy  city  and  the 
Pharisean  synagogue,  it  might  have  launched  anathe- 
mas of  extermination  against  a  converted  city,  or  it 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         167 

might  have  condemned  the  blasphemies  of  a  false  prophet 
and  have  denounced  him  to  the  Roman  Governor  as  a 
possible  disturber  of  public  order.  But  with  all  this  it 
could  not  hurt  a  hair  of  the  head  of  the  woman  suspected 
of  adultery,  even  if  found  guilty  by  the  water  test,  nor 
could  an  impious  city  have  been  made  to  suffer  so  much 
as  one  hour  of  hunger,  nor  could  even  one  stone  have  been 
cast  at  the  false  prophet.  The  definition  and  punish- 
ment of  capital  offences  had  passed  to  the  Roman  power, 
sole  possessor  of  the  jus  gladii,  on  which  was  based  the 
power  over  life  and  death. 


NOTES 

1  Deuteronomy  xvi.  18-20. 

2  1  Samuel  vii.  15-17,  viii.  5  ;  2  Samuel  xiv.  1-11,  xv.  1,  6 ;  1  Kings 
iii.  16-28  ;  2  Kings  vi.  26-31. 

3  1  Kings  1-13. 

4  1  Chronicles  xxiii.  6  ;  2  Chronicles  xix.  5-11.     Cf.  Castelli,  La 
legge  del  pop.  ebr.  cap.  viii. 

5  Deuteronomy  xvii.  8-12. 

6  Cf.  Castelli,  I.e. 

7  Sanhedrin,  i.  par.  6,  x.  par.  2,  and  886,  iii.  par.  1.     Cf.  Momm- 
sen,  Le  prov.  Rom.  cap.  xi.  pp.  479,  503. 

8  Sifre,  ii.  par.  153 ;  Sanhedrin,  f.  17o,  246,  el  seq.,  27  et  seq., 
366. 

9  Sanhedrin,  136,  886. 

10  Haghigha,  16;  Sanhedrin,  iii.  par.  1;  Sifre,  f.  366;  Mai- 
monides,  De  Synedriis,  i.  3. 

11  V.  s.  cap.  i.     Cf.  Pierantoni,  Gli  avvocati  di  Roma  antica, 
Bologna,  Zanichelli,  1900,  cap.  i.  par.  3. 

12  Saalschiitz,  Das  mosaische  Recht,  p.  58;  Deuteronomy  xx. 
5-9. 

13  Sanhedrin,  i.  1. 

14  Maimonides,  De  Synedriis,  v.    The  competency  of  the  San- 
hedrim of  the  second  order  in  capital  cases  was  restricted  to 


168        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

charges  of  conversion  to  other  religions  against  tribes  or  cities, 
and  to  charges  against  high  priests,  rebellious  judges,  and  false 
prophets.  The  minor  tribunals  dealt  with  all  civil  cases  and 
such  penal  matters  as  involved  no  other  punishment  than  fining 
or  flogging.  The  constitution  of  these  tribunals  was  excep- 
tionally modified  when  they  had  to  demand  the  expiatory  sacri- 
fice imposed  by  the  law  upon  the  inhabitants  of  any  city  nearest 
to  the  place  where  the  dead  body  had  been  found  of  a  man  who 
had  been  killed,  and  had  lain  undiscovered;  and  when  they  had 
to  decide  whether  the  thirteenth  month  should  be  intercalated 
in  order  to  restore  the  coincidence  of  the  lunar  with  the  solar 
year.  In  the  first  case  the  minor  tribunals  had  to  be  composed 
of  five  judges,  and  in  the  second  of  seven  (Maimonides,  De 
Synedriis,  v ;  Sanhedrin,  i.  1). 


CHAPTER   XIII 

The  Minutes  of  the  Audience  of  the  Sanhedrin — The  Pagan 
Sources  upon  the  Life  and  Trial  of  Jesus — Critical  Con- 
clusions regarding  the  Form  and  Contents  of  the  Gospels — 
The  Gospel  Texts  upon  the  Trial  before  the  Sanhedrin — 
The  Two  Charges  brought  against  Jesus:  Sedition  and 
Blasphemy — How  the  Sanhedrin  proceeded  by  Elimination, 
abandoning  the  First  Charge  in  Default  of  Proof  and  taking 
the  Second  from  the  Confession  of  the  Accused — Why  the 
Confession  did  not  dispense  the  Judges  from  examining 
Witnesses — Why  the  Confession  would  not  in  Itself  con- 
stitute an  Indictable  Offence. 

THE  two  scribes  who  acted  as  clerks  of  the  court  at  the 
sitting  of  the  Sanhedrin  on  Nisan  14  have  not  left  us 
the  minutes  of  this  nocturnal  meeting.  For  information 
concerning  it  we  must  therefore  have  recourse  to  other 
sources. 

Those  of  Pagan  origin  are  arid  and  dry  in  the  extreme, 
as  is  the  case  in  every  other  period  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
Josephus  Flavius,  the  writer  of  antiquity  who  lived 
nearest  to  His  time,  only  dedicates  to  Him  a  brief  men- 
tion :  "  At  that  time  lived  Jesus,  a  wise  man — if  He 
should  be  called  man.  He  did  marvellous  things  and 
was  the  master  of  those  men  who  received  the  truth 
with  joy.  He  moreover  brought  over  many  Jews  to 
His  side,  as  also  many  foreigners  of  the  Greek  coun- 
tries. This  was  the  Christ.  When  on  the  accusation 
of  the  most  influential  men  among  us  Pilate  sentenced 
Him  to  death  on  the  cross,  His  followers  nevertheless 

169 


170        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

did  not  forsake  Him.  He  appeared  among  them  on 
the  third  day  because  divine  prophecies  had  foretold 
of  Him  this  and  many  other  miracles.  Up  to  the  pres- 
ent the  Christian  sect,  so-called  after  Him,  has  not 
ceased  to  exist."  1  The  passage  which  has  already  been 
quoted  from'  Eusebius  2  was  for  some  time  regarded  as 
having  been  interpolated  in  the  text  of  that  author  by 
another  hand,  but  there  is  now  more  disposition  to  treat 
it  as  authentic.3  The  passage  in  Tacitus  which  caused 
surprise  and  emotion  to  the  reader  of  the  Annals,  but  was 
looked  upon  with  suspicion,  is  now  also  declared  to  be 
perfectly  authentic.4  It  only  amounts,  however,  to 
attesting  the  existence  of  Christ,  now  incontestably  estab- 
lished. "  In  order  to  quiet  the  report  (caused  by  the 
great  fire  in  Rome)  Nero  accused  and  punished  with  the 
most  refined  tortures  those  who  with  perverse  obstinacy 
called  themselves  Christians.  The  author  of  this  name 
was  Christ,  who  under  the  reign  of  Tiberius  was  executed 
by  the  Procurator  Pontius  Pilate."  5  Suetonius,  Pliny 
the  Younger,  Lucian,  and  Epictetus  incidentally  men- 
tion, besides  the  personality  of  Christ,  the  religious  motive 
of  the  Christians.6 

Only  the  Gospel  sources  therefore  remain  to  us.  The 
most  cautious  criticism  that  has  been  applied  to  the  Gos- 
pel record  has  rather  denied  the  existence  of  Christianity 
in  its  primitive  form  in  present  practice  than  its  intrinsic 
truth.  The  greatest  critics  hold  that  the  work  of  the 
Evangelists  induces  the  supposition  of  a  certain  develop- 
ment of  oral  tradition  created  during  the  apostolic  age 
in  the  primitive  movement  of  Christian  life,  and  that  this 
oral  tradition  was  bound  to  be  succeeded  by  a  written 
tradition  which  would  be  preserved  in  the  texts  attributed 
to  the  Apostles,  or  in  other  anterior  texts  on  which  the 
former  would  have  been  elaborated.  Some  hold  that 
the  most  ancient  portion  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testa- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         171 

ment  consists  of  the  Epistle  of  S.  Paul  and  the 
Apocalypse,  where  in  truth  the  references  to  the  life 
and  person  of  Jesus  are  few  and  not  very  precise. 
Others  maintain  the  contrary,  while  the  majority  be- 
lieve that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  can  only  have  been 
written  by  S.  Luke,  author  of  the  third  Gospel.  Cer- 
tainly in  the  texts  of  the  four  Evangelists,  even  in  that 
of  S.  Luke,  allusion  is  made  to  "  many  who  have  taken 
in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those  things 
which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us "  and  to  those 
"  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  min- 
isters of  the  word."  7  But  setting  aside  questions  of 
detail  in  this  matter,  on  which  no  two  critics  are  ever 
found  in  agreement,  it  is  useful  to  take  note  of  the 
criticism  which  maintains  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
were  written  before  the  Gospels:  a  profound  difference, 
observes  this  critic,  separates  the  one  from  the  other. 
The  luminous  and  creative  words  of  the  Master  lose  much 
of  their  vivid  force  in  the  mouths  of  His  successors.  The 
discourses  of  S.  Peter,  S.  Stephen,  and  S.  Philip  do  not 
possess  that  lofty  idealism,  that  great  vitality,  that  fine 
imagery,  that  profound  impress  of  eternity,  which  mark 
the  words  of  Jesus.  Hence  if  the  Gospels  really  come 
from  the  apostolic  age  or  the  period  following  it,  we  must 
believe  that  the  most  living  and  spiritual  portion  of  their 
contents  flowed  from  the  primal  source,  and  is  therefore 
a  faithful  testimony  and  sincere  echo  of  the  original 
word  of  the  Master.8  This  is  the  conclusion  of  some 
critics,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  surrender.  In  this  way 
the  terms  of  the  chronology  become  inverted,  and  sub- 
sequent events  become  antecedent.  The  Gospels  which 
lead  some  critics  to  regard  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
as  antecedent  contain  something  incomparably  more  liv- 
ing and  real  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  latter.  And  if 
this  be  so,  it  matters  little  that  the  form  in  which  we 


172        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

now  know  the  Gospels  may  not  have  been  the  original 
form,  which  few  orthodox  critics  now  attribute  to  the 
Evangelists  themselves,  since  it  is  felt  that  the  best 
part  of  the  work  of  the  Gospel  flows  from  the  primal 
source  and  is  a  faithful  testimony  and  sincere  echo  of 
the  original  word  of  Jesus.  In  another  matter — that  of 
the  vexed  question  of  the  period  at  which  the  four 
Gospels  appeared  after  the  death  of  Jesus — the  latest 
critics  agree  in  shortening  this  period  to  a  notable 
extent,  and  now  assign  S.  Mark's  Gospel  to  between 
65  and  70  in  the  first  century,  S.  Matthew's  to  between 
70  and  75,  S.  Luke's  to  between  78  and  93,  and  S. 
John's  to  between  80  and  HO.9 

Hence  the  acts  of  the  life  and  the  record  of  the  trial 
of  Jesus  can  be  read  as  in  one  sole  faithful  text  in  the 
Gospels. 

Let  us  read  it  at  the  point  which  our  argument  has 
now  reached: 

"  Now  the  chief  priests  and  the  whole  council  sought 
false  witness  against  Jesus,  that  they  might  put  him 
to  death;  and  they  found  it  not,  though  many  false 
witnesses  came.  But  afterward  came  two  and  said,  This 
man  said,  I  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple  of  God,  and 
to  build  it  in  three  days;  and  the  high  priest  stood  up 
and  said  unto  Him,  Answerest  Thou  nothing?  What  is 
it  which  these  witness  against  Thee?  But  Jesus  held 
His  peace.  And  the  high  priest  said  unto  Him,  I 
adjure  Thee  by  the  living  God  that  Thou  tell  us  whether 
Thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus  saith  unto 
him,  Thou  hast  said :  nevertheless,  I  say  unto  you,  Hence- 
forth ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
Then  the  high  priest  rent  his  garments,  saying,  He 
hath  spoken  blasphemy.  What  further  need  have  we  of 
witnesses?  Behold,  now  ye  have  heard  the  blasphemy  ^ 


THE    TRIAL,   OF   JESUS         173 

what  think  ye?  They  answered,  and  said,  He  is  worthy 
of  death."  10 

Thus  S.  Matthew. 

The  narrative  of  S.  Mark  shows  no  divergence,  and 
summarises  briefly  the  capital  trial,  the  charges,  pro- 
ceedings, and  sentence.  S.  Mark  does  little  more  than 
explain  to  us  how  the  false  witnesses  either  failed  to 
prove  anything  or  were  contradicted  by  others,  and  the 
explanation  is  that  the  witnesses  gave  entirely  discordant 
testimony,  whereas  two  of  them  at  least  should  have 
been  in  agreement  to  legitimise  a  condemnation. 

"  Now  the  chief  priests  and  the  whole  council  sought 
witness  against  Jesus  to  put  Him  to  death;  and  found 
it  not.  For  many  bare  false  witness  against  Him,  and 
their  witness  agreed  not  together.  And  there  stood 
up  certain  and  bare  false  witness  against  Him,  saying, 
We  heard  Him  say,  I  will  destroy  this  temple  that  is 
made  with  hands,  and  in  three  days  I  will  build  another 
made  without  hands.  And  not  even  so  did  their  witness 
agree  together.  And  the  high  priest  stood  up  in  the 
midst,  and  asked  Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  Thou  noth- 
ing ?  What  is  it  which  these  witness  against  Thee  ?  But 
He  held  His  peace,  and  answered  nothing.  Again  the 
high  priest  asked  Him  and  saith  unto  Him,  Art  thou 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?  And  Jesus  said,  I  am, 
and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  power  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
And  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  and  saith,  What 
further  need  have  we  of  witnesses?  Ye  have  heard 
the  blasphemy:  what  think  ye?  And  they  all  con- 
demned Him  to  be  worthy  of  death."  n 

Thus  S.  Mark. 

S.  Luke  and  S.  John  cannot  be  used  for  purposes  of 
comparison,  since  they  omit  any  narrative  of  the  trial, 
and  simply  mention  it  in  the  way  of  epilogue  at  the 


174        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

point  where  the  Sanhedrin  meets  again  in  order  to  take 
measures  for  the  execution  of  the  sentence;  and  I  do 
not  understand  how  this  omission  should  not  have  been 
understood  for  what  it  is  by  Strauss,  who  sharpens  his 
exegetic  criticism  in  order  to  confine  himself  to  the  dem- 
onstration that  it  is  a  lacune  in  the  narratives  of  S.  Luke 
and  S.  John  to  have  said  nothing  of  what  happened  in 
regard  to  the  false  witnesses,  since  it  is  quite  likely  that 
Jesus  had  spoken  of  the  destruction  and  rebuilding  of 
the  temple  with  S.  Mark  and  S.  Matthew,  and  it  was 
therefore  very  natural  that  such  an  utterance  should 
have  constituted  a  charge  against  Him  before  the  trib- 
unal.12 Schleiermacher  explains  the  omission  in  S. 
Luke  by  saying  that  the  compiler  of  that  Gospel  fol- 
lowed Jesus  from  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  but  was 
refused  admission  to  the  palace  of  the  high  priest, 
together  with  the  greater  part  of  the  other  disciples, 
and  could  not  therefore  narrate  what  occurred  in  the 
palace.13  But  the  explanation  is  a  lame  one,  since  it 
does  not  suffice  to  justify  the  Gospel  of  S.  John,  in  which 
the  same  omission  occurs ;  and  yet  S.  John,  admitted  into 
the  house  of  Caiaphas,  followed  Jesus  all  through  the 
judicial  proceedings  and  up  to  the  moment  of  His  death. 
I  have  already  mentioned  it,  but  think  it  well  to  repeat 
that  S.  John  describes  the  arrest  of  Jesus  and  the  sum- 
mary examination  to  which  He  was  subjected  by  the 
high  priest  independently  of  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin ;  and  that  at  that  moment  the  servants  and  officers 
of  the  high  priest  were  gathered  round  the  fire  in  the 
courtyard  to  warm  themselves,  as  it  was  cold.14  But  of 
all  that  formed  the  material  of  a  mock  trial,  S.  John 
does  not  say  one  word,  since  from  the  last  word  men- 
tioned concerning  the  denial  of  Peter  (which  no  doubt 
occurred  before  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin),  he  passes 
to  the  last  word  there  was  to  say  concerning  the  trial 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         175 

and  condemnation,  only  referring  to  the  transfer  of  Jesus 
from  Caiaphas  to  Pilate.  "  But  Peter  denied  again  for 
the  third  time,  and  the  cock  crew.  Jesus  was  then  taken 
from  the  house  of  Caiaphas  to  the  Pretorium.  And  it 
was  morning."  15 

Hence  the  account  of  the  proceedings  before  the  San- 
hedrin  that  night  is  only  given  by  S.  Mark  and  S. 
Matthew. 

This  Gospel  account  attests  that  the  charges  were  two 
in  number,  one  sedition,  the  other  blasphemy.  In  the 
first  place  it  was  sought  to  prove  by  false  and  incon- 
clusive testimony  that  Jesus  desired  the  destruction  of 
the  temple,  and  up  to  this  point  the  charge  is  one  of 
sedition.  Afterwards,  when  proof  of  this  charge  was 
seen  to  be  impossible,  owing  to  the  disagreement  between 
the  statements  of  the  witnesses,  the  judges  changed  their 
plan  of  attack  and  snatched  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ac- 
cused the  declaration  that  He  was  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
Then  the  charge  became  one  of  blasphemy. 

It  may  be  objected  that  in  view  of  a  penal  law  of 
theistic  basis  the  difference  is  not  appreciable,  since  who- 
ever blasphemed  the  national  monotheism  undermined  the 
theocratic  order.  But  here  the  difference  is  not  in  name, 
but  in  fact.  It  is  one  thing  to  charge  an  accused  per- 
son with  having  used  subversive  expressions  that  he  may 
or  may  not  have  uttered,  and  another  to  charge  him 
with  being  what  he  may  or  may  not  be,  independently 
of  the  fact  whether  he  had  or  had  not  made  any  affirma- 
tion of  the  kind.  The  difference  consists  in  the  first 
place  in  the  material  charge  made  in  the  matter  of  the 
indictment,  and  then  in  a  separate  and  almost  contrary 
direction  given  to  the  examination  in  pressing  the  charge. 
So  long  as  false  and  discordant  testimony  was  brought 
forward  in  support  of  the  charge  that  the  Accused  had 
declared  that  He  could  destroy  the  temple  and  rebuild 


176        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

it  in  three  days,  the  task  of  the  prosecution  was  to  dis- 
tinguish the  false  from  the  true  in  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses,  and  to  decide  whether  the  Accused  had  or  had 
not  uttered  those  words.  When,  therefore,  the  Accused, 
replying  to  a  simple  question,  admits  being  the  person 
charged,  the  prosecution  begins  a  series  of  inquiries,  of 
confrontations,  and  arguments,  the  object  of  which 
should  have  been  to  lead  to  a  j  udgment  establishing  with- 
out bias  or  precipitancy  whether  the  Accused  was  really 
what  He  declared  Himself  to  be.  The  first  charge  con- 
tains in  itself  a  question  of  proof,  the  second  of  appre- 
ciation. Before  the  first  the  Accused  may  remain  silent, 
but  the  burden  of  proof  rests  entirely  upon  the  judge; 
nevertheless,  the  Accused  may  meet  the  second  charge  by 
confession,  but  this  is  the  admission  of  a  fact  and  not  of 
a  crime  which  has  to  be  inquired  into  and  defined  by 
the  judge. 

Instead  of  this  the  president  of  the  Sanhedrin  shifts 
suddenly  from  one  charge  to  the  other.  Feeling  con- 
vinced that  it  was  useless  to  vex  innocence  with  a  pre- 
tence of  proof  based  upon  false  and  discordant  evidence, 
he  at  once  changes  his  inquisitorial  system.  He  endeav- 
ours without  success  to  obtain  a  confession  on  the  first 
charge  from  the  Accused,  who  remains  silent,  and  this 
charge  is  then  altogether  abandoned ;  and  then  from  the 
mouth  that  speaks  the  truth  and  does  not  admit  culpa- 
bility he  extorts  an  affirmation  which  is  merely  a  reply 
to  be  considered  by  the  tribunal,  but  does  not  afford  suffi- 
cient ground  for  a  condemnation.  Here  follows  the 
comedy  of  the  rending  of  the  high  priest's  garments  un- 
worthy even  of  an  assistant  scribe,  and  still  less  of  a 
president  of  the  supreme  tribunal.  In  fact,  the  law  did 
not  even  permit  him  to  uncover  his  head.16  But  he  very 
soon  became  calm  and  consoled  himself  by  saying, 
"What  need  have  we  of  further  witness?" — as  if  the 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        177 

witnesses  the  need  for  whom  was  at  first  felt  had  been 
brought  to  support  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  instead  of 
the  first  charge,  that  had  already  been  abandoned ! 

Nevertheless,  witnesses  could  not  be  dispensed  with  for 
the  second  charge,  although  the  Accused  was  supposed 
to  have  admitted  it,  as  according  to  the  Mosaic  law  no 
confession  can  dispense  with  the  proof  required  from  wit- 
nesses by  the  law.  A  single  witness  only  does  not  suffice, 
whatever  may  be  the  offence  or  crime  with  which  an 
accused  may  be  charged.  There  must  be  two  or  three 
witnesses.17  This  is  one  of  the  clearest  texts  of  the  law. 
Another  text  insisted  not  only  on  the  concurrence,  but  on 
the  agreement  of  the  two  witnesses,  it  being  reasonable 
to  consider  that  if  one  witness  brought  a  charge  and 
the  other  did  not,  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  charge 
was  proved  by  two  witnesses  as  the  law  required.  On 
the  concordant  depositions  of  two  or  three  witnesses  the 
accused  found  worthy  of  death  must  die.  On  the  other 
hand,  no  one  can  suffer  capital  punishment  when  only 
one  witness  has  testified  against  him.18  And  this  is  a 
rule  of  prudence  and  judicial  wisdom  that  now  obtains 
in  scarcely  any  modern  legislation,  which  confides  to  the 
unfettered  discretion  of  the  judge  the  full  direction  of 
the  trial.  Provisions  like  those  of  the  Mosaic  law  were 
not,  however,  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews  alone,  since  a 
similar  regulation  existed  among  the  majority  of  ancient 
peoples,19  the  practical  spirit  of  the  fathers  of  the  law 
being  convinced  that  there  is  no  falsehood,  however  au- 
dacious it  may  be,  which  cannot  find  the  support  of  some 
one  witness.  In  this  way  thought  and  wrote  Pliny,  who 
was  not,  however,  a  jurisconsult.20  And  the  Italian  law, 
which  does  not  contain  in  its  penal  code  any  such  pre- 
caution, recognises  and  sanctions  it  in  civil  procedure, 
not  admitting  that  contracts  representing  more  than  500 
lire  can  be  proved  by  means  of  witnesses — as  if  the  inno- 


178        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

cence,  liberty,  and  honour  of  the  men  of  Italy  were  held 
at  a  lower  estimate.21 

The  confession  of  the  accused  made  no  exception  to  the 
rule,  experience  showing  how  a  confession  could  be  the 
result  of  weakness,  of  folly,  or  of  interest — yes,  even 
of  interest.  Some  homicide  on  one  occasion  confessed 
himself  to  be  guilty  of  robbery  or  arson  in  order  to 
obtain  proof  of  his  innocence  of  some  greater  crime  which 
he  had  committed  at  the  same  time ;  a  husband  persisted 
in  declaring  himself  guilty  of  outrage  upon  a  woman 
really  committed  by  some  unknown  person  in  order  that, 
by  being  sentenced  on  this  account,  he  might  prove  his 
marital  efficiency,  which  had  been  disputed  by  his  wife, 
who  was  contemplating  steps  to  annul  her  marriage. 

Some  weak-minded  people,  unable  to  support  the  tor- 
ture of  a  harassing  examination,  and  eager  to  regain 
their  liberty,  make  a  full  confession,  accusing  themselves 
in  order  not  to  be  indicted,  like  those  persons  who,  cross- 
ing a  river  on  a  plank  bridge,  throw  themselves  through 
nervousness  into  the  rushing  water  in  order  not  to  fall 
in.  Fools,  from  want  of  responsibility  or  through  a 
boasting  nature,  accept,  affirm,  or  confess  everything  of 
which  they  know  nothing.  Had  Jesus  really  been  the 
irresponsible  fanatic  which  he  appeared  to  be  to  Pilate 
and  Herod,  He  could  only  have  deserved  flogging  or 
the  shame  of  the  white  tunic,  and  His  confession  would 
have  been  part  of  His  folly. 

It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  blasphemy  should 
be  proved  by  at  least  two  witnesses  bearing  concordant 
testimony  that  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  had  affirmed 
during  His  preaching  that  He  was  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  This  was  required  for  the  regularity  of  the  trial 
that  was  held  in  the  Sanhedrin  council  chamber;  it  was 
no  less  necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  truth  of  a 
charge  that  was  not  legally  proved. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         179 

There  are  other  valid  reasons  which  will  shortly  lead  us 
to  discuss  the  substance  and  not  the  form  of  the  charge. 

The  utmost  severity  was  observed  in  taking  the  evi- 
dence of  witnesses  against  a  person  charged  with  blas- 
phemy— at  least,  so  we  are  told  by  the  compilers  of  the 
Talmud.  Whether  they  faithfully  record  tradition 
upon  this  matter,  we  cannot  be  quite  sure.  The  written 
law  is  silent  upon  the  point.  In  such  cases,  according 
to  the  Talmudists,  two  witnesses  were  posted  behind  a 
party  wall.  The  accused  was  brought  into  the  adjoin- 
ing room  whence  he  could  be  overheard,  without  himself 
seeing  anybody ;  but  two  candles  were  lighted  close  to 
him,  so  that  he  might  be  seen.  He  was  made  to  repeat 
the  blasphemy,  and  was  then  requested  to  retract  it.  If 
he  did  so,  he  was  discharged;  but  if  he  persisted,  the 
witnesses  who  had  overheard  him  led  him  before  the  San- 
hedrin,  where  he  was  stoned.  The  compilers  of  the 
Talmud  set  so  much  faith  upon  this  tradition,  that  they 
insist  that  Jesus  was  proceeded  against  in  precisely  the 
same  manner.  This  is  the  historical  oracle  which  caused 
Renan  to  declare,  with  so  much  assurance,  that  the  action 
which  the  priests  determined  to  bring  against  Jesus  was 
in  complete  conformity  with  contemporary  law,  and  that 
the  procedure  against  the  perverter  who  had  attempted 
to  violate  the  purity  of  religion  was  fully  set  forth  in 
the  Talmud.  But  even  if  this  or  some  less  ridiculous  rite 
was  observed  in  obtaining  the  confirmation  or  retracta- 
tion of  blasphemy,  it  could  never  have  taken  the  place 
of  the  exigencies  of  legal  procedure,  which  were  a  mat- 
ter apart  and  of  considerable  importance,  and  which  were 
imposed  by  the  written  law,  and  could  not  be  modified 
by  tradition — the  necessity  of  proving,  by  means  of 
unanimous  witnesses,  that  the  Accused  had  publicly  blas- 
phemed in  the  open  comings  and  goings  of  everyday  life ; 
and  in  this  consisted  the  crime,  and  not  in  any  answers 


180        THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

to  the  judge,  which  constituted  the  defence  but  never  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  any  poly- 
theistic foreigner  coming  to  Jerusalem  without  having 
had  either  the  time  or  intention  to  profess  an  anti- Jehov- 
ist  creed,  might  have  been  brought,  merely  on  suspicion, 
before  the  Sanhedrin;  might  have  there  been  examined 
as  to  his  belief  in  another  god  who  was  not  Jehovah,  and 
upon  his  spontaneous  confession,  vouched  for  by  two 
witnesses,  he  might  have  been  condemned  to  death.  The 
confession  of  a  prisoner  might  make  his  guilt  manifest, 
but  it  could  never  be  the  independent  and  exclusive  occa- 
sion of  his  guilt. 

But  the  condemnation  had  already  been  decided  upon 
before  the  trial :  it  was  expedient  that  a  man  should  die 
for  the  sake  of  the  State ;  it  was  not  proofs  but  pretexts 
that  were  sought.  Jesus  knew  it,  and  disdained  to  reply 
to  what  was  advanced  in  the  first  place  because  it  was 
false ;  what  was  advanced  in  the  second  place  He  of  His 
own  accord  and  freely  admitted,  because  in  its  material 
basis  it  was  true.  When  a  false  and  unjust  charge  was 
brought  against  Him,  He  held  His  peace,  and  He 
answered  when  no  proof,  not  even  a  false  one,  constrained 
Him  to  speak.  Novel  and  sublime  behaviour  this, 
indeed,  on  the  part  of  a  prisoner  at  the  bar! 

This  conduct  in  itself  should  have  sufficed  to  enlighten 
the  judges,  should  have  enlightened  them,  more  than  the 
farce  of  the  candles  and  the  witnesses,  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  dilemma — namely,  that  the  prisoner  before  them 
was  either  a  fanatic  or  should  be  acquitted  as  an  apostle 
to  whom  men  should  hearken. 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS        181 


NOTES 

1  Antiq.  jud.  lib.  xviii.  cap.  iv.  par.  3. 

2  Hist.  eccl.  i.,  ii.,  Demonstr.  ev.  3,  7. 

3Miiller,  among  others,  believes  this:  Christus  bei  Josephus 
Flavins,  Stuttgart,  1890. 

4  Arnold,  Die  Neronische   Christenverfolgung,   1888.     Its  au- 
thenticity was  denied,  among  others,  by  Hochart. 

5  Ann.  xv.  44. 

6  On  these  sources,  cf.  Reville,  Jesus  de  Nazareth,  i.  266.     An 
allusion  to  Jesus  is  supposed  to  be  made  in  Joshua,  "  homo  pro- 
batus  a  domino"  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  Assumptio  Mosis 
(1,  6 ;  10,  15),  which  was  written  shortly  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century.     Cf.  Chiap- 
pelli,  Nuove  pagine  sul  Crist,  antico,  p.  16. 

7  S.  Luke  i.  1-3. 

8  Chiappelli,  op.   cit.  p.  21.     Concerning  the  reception  given 
by  orthodox  critics  to  these  heterodox  disquisitions,  the  observa- 
tions of  Father  Curci  are  worthy  of  note.     He  says:  "  Catholics 
would  be  ill  advised  to  take  offence,  seeing  that  the  Church  has 
defined  as  inspired  Scriptures  all  the  books  contained  in  the 
Vulgate  (Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  iv.  Deer,  de  Script.  Can.),  but  as 
to  the  matters  not  affirmed  in  those  books,  such  as  some  ques- 
tions of  authorship  and  of  time  and  place  of  origin,  all  that  is 
left  to  the  study  of  the  erudite  and  to  the  inventive  vein  of  the 
critics  "   (//  Nuovo  Testam.  Preface  to  the  second  Epistle  to 
the   Corinthians).     But  in   these   days   even  the  Jesuit  world 
appears  to  be  a  timid  conservative  among  orthodox  critics,  who 
now  concede  much  more.     Moreover,  I  have  scarcely  touched 
upon  the  very  intricate  critical  and  philological  questions  re- 
garding the  text  of  the  Evangelists,  since  a  fair  though  sum- 
mary exposition  of  them  would  fill  a  large  volume.     Among 
the  most  recent  works  to  be  consulted  on  these  questions  are 
that  of  Theodor  Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament  (2 
vols.  2nd  ed.  Leipzig,  1900),  and  by  the  same  author  the  ample 
Commentary  to  the  Gospel  of  S.  Matthew,  Leipzig  (1903).     Deal- 
ing with  more  strictly  theological  questions,  there  is  the  book 


182        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

of  Frederick  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels  (London,  1898), 
while  for  an  excellent  notice  of  all  modern  works  on  these  sub- 
jects we  have  the  book  of  E.  Jacquier,  Histoire  des  livres  du 
Nouveau  Testament  (Paris,  1903),  but  up  to  the  present  only 
the  first  volume,  dealing  with  the  Epistles  of  S.  Paul,  has  ap- 
peared. 

9  These  dates  are  defended  by  Harnack.     Zahn  differs  but 
slightly,  except  that  he  dates  the  present  version  of  S.  Matthew 
from  the  year  85,  and  the  primitive  Aramaic  S.  Matthew  from 
about  62.     The  date  of  S.  John's  Gospel,  which  by  a  unanimous 
consensus  of  opinion  is  the  last,  varies  according  to  the  critics 
from  80  to  110. 

10  xxvi.  59-66. 

11  xiv.  55-64. 

12  Vie,  torn.  ii.  ch.  iii.  par.  125. 

13  Cf.  Strauss,  I.e. 

14  S.  John  xviii.  18. 

15  xviii.  27,  28. 

16 Leviticus  x.  6:  "And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron,  and  unto 
Eleazar,  and  unto  Ithamar,  his  sons,  Uncover  not  your  heads 
neither  rend  your  clothes ;  lest  ye  die,  and  lest  wrath  come  upon 
all  the  people."  Ibid.  xxi.  10:  "And  he  that  is  the  high  priest 
among  his  brethren,  upon  whose  head  the  anointing  oil  was 
poured,  and  that  is  consecrated  to  put  on  the  garments,  shall 
not  uncover  his  head,  nor  rend  his  clothes." 

17  Deuteronomy  xix.  15. 

18  Deuteronomy  xvii.  6.    A  perfect  parallel  of  this  command 
occurs  in  the  second  Epistle  of  S.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians:  "  In 
the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall  every  word  be  estab- 
lished "  (xiii.  1).     In  order  that  witnesses  should  feel  the  re- 
sponsibility of  their  charges,  the  law  required  them  to  be  the 
first  to  carry  out  the  sentence  (Deuteronomy  xvii.  7). 

19  It  existed  principally  in  the  Roman  law :  L.  20,  Dig.  De  quoss- 
tionibus  xlviii.  18  ;  1.  9,  par.  1,  Cod.  De  testibus,  iv.  20.     Cf.  Cre- 
mani,  De  jure  criminali,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xxvi.  par.  9,  p.  650 ;  Mon- 
tesquieu, Esprit  des  lois,  1.  ii.  ch.  iii.  torn,  i ;  Brugnoli,  Delia  cer- 
tezza  e  prova  criminale,  pars.  263,  272.     As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  basis  of  this  question  was  viewed  from  a  criterion  of  mere 


THE   TRIAi;  OF  JESUS        183 

symmetry,  since  it  was  held  that  between  an  accused  person 
who  denies  his  guilt  and  a  simple  witness  who  affirmed  it  there 
resulted  an  even  balance.  There  must,  therefore,  be  a  third 
witness,  whose  evidence  should  make  the  scale  turn  for  con- 
viction, otherwise  the  presumption  of  innocence  in  favour  of  the 
accused  should  prevail.  This  principle  is  just,  because  human, 
and  though  it  may  not  require  formal  confirmation,  it  should  be 
strongly  and  constantly  recommended  to  the  judges  now  free 
to  decide  according  to  their  own  innermost  conviction,  but  not 
from  chance  motives. 

20  Hist.  not.  lib.  viii.  cap.  xxii:  Nidlum  tarn  impudens  men- 
dacium  est  quod  teste  careat. 

21  Art.  1341,  Cod.  civ. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

Wherein  the  two  Charges  are  examined  with  Reference  to  their 
Contents — It  is  shown  that  the  Charge  of  Sedition  was 
False  and  that  of  Blasphemy  Unjust — Confutation  of  the 
Thesis  of  Renan  that  it  was  the  First  and  not  the  Second 
Charge  which  caused  the  Condemnation  before  the  San- 
hedrin — How  Jesus  proclaims  Himself  the  Messiah — Moral 
and  Historical  Conception  of  the  Messiah — How  the  Mes- 
siah was  understood  and  awaited  by  the  Contemporaries 
of  Jesus  in  Various  Manners — How  the  Judges  of  the  San- 
hedrin  neglected  their  Duty  in  not  raising  the  Problem  of 
Messianic  Identity  with  Regard  to  their  Prisoner — Con- 
temporary Judaism  and  Christianity  successively  prove 
that  this  Problem  ought  not  to  have  been  set  on  one  side 
by  a  Foregone  Conclusion — The  Sanhedrin  conducted  a 
Conspiracy,  not  a  Trial. 

OP  the  two  charges,  the  first  was  untrue,  the  second  was 
unjust.  This  double  assertion  brings  us  to  a  question 
of  matter,  whereas  we  have  digressed  into  a  discussion 
upon  procedure. 

It  was  not  true  that -Jesus  had  said:  "I  will  destroy 
this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and  in  three  days 
I  will  build  another  made  without  hands."  This  was  a 
malicious  and  false  perversion  on  the  part  of  the  wit- 
nesses, who  had  been  discovered  and  suborned  by  the 
judges  themselves  with  great  difficulty.  Salvador  and 
Renan  remark  that  as  an  absolute  matter  of  fact  tbe  two 
witnesses  whom  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  call  false  did 
nothing  more  than  repeat  a  statement  which  S.  John 
later  on  asserted  to  be  true.  But  S.  John  never  did 

184 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         185 

attribute  any  statement  of  the  kind  to  the  Master.  The 
Evangelist  reports  the  following  words :  "  Destroy  this 
temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  1  Now  S. 
John  believed  that  Jesus  spoke  of  the  temple  of  His 
body ;  2  but,  setting  aside  this  interpretation,  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  words  is  clear :  the  notion  of  the  destruc- 
tion is  hypothetical  and  the  raising  up  is  subordinate. 
It  is  as  if  Jesus  had  said,  "  Destroy  this  temple " ; 
or  even  "  If  you  destroy  this  temple."  The  destruction 
was  supposed  then  as  being  brought  about  not  by  him, 
but  by  his  interlocutors,  and  merely  as  a  hypothesis :  the 
building-up  again  would  never  have  taken  place  had  not 
the  destruction  first  been  accomplished.  The  witnesses, 
however,  changed  the  words  on  which  the  charge  was 
founded,  attributing  to  the  accused  the  resolute  declara- 
tion "  I  can  destroy  "  (possum  destruere)  instead  of  the 
hyperbolical  supposition  "  Destroy  ye  the  temple  "  (sol- 
vite  templum).  This  is  why  the  first  charge  was  un- 
true, and  this  is  why  the  witnesses  did  not  agree,  com- 
pelled as  they  were  to  build  upon  false  foundations. 

The  Accused  did  not  pause  to  call  their  veracity  in 
question,  when  He  was  examined  by  Hanan. 

"  I  have  spoken  openly  to  the  world,"  He  replied.  "  I 
ever  taught  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  temple,  where 
all  the  Jews  come  together,  and  in  secret  spake  I  noth- 
ing. Why  askest  thou  Me  ?  Ask  them  that  have  heard 
Me,  what  I  spake  unto  them."  But  He  was  smitten  and 
given  no  hearing.  If  they  had  had  any  faith  in  the 
truth  which  they  made  semblance  of  searching  out,  they 
might  have  heard  as  witnesses,  certainly  with  the  strict- 
est reservations  inspired  by  caution  and  suspicion,  yet 
they  might  have  heard  the  followers  of  the  Accused,  who 
might  also  have  confessed  as  the  Master  himself  was  to 
confess  in  the  case  of  the  second  charge.  Moreover,  S. 
John  was  present,  who  was  a  familiar  figure  in  the  house 


186        THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

of  Hanan.  S.  Peter  stood  there,  one  foot  in  court  and 
one  on  the  threshold.  It  would  not  have  been  difficult 
either  to  have  taken  the  evidence  of  the  creatures  they 
had  set  to  dog  the  man  they  suspected  and  to  draw  him 
into  admissions :  nor,  considering  the  moral  trend  of  the 
proceedings  which  had  been  set  in  motion,  would  it  have 
been  inopportune  to  call  in  witness  the  spy  who  had 
offered  and  sold  his  intimate  connection  with  the  Master 
in  order  to  procure  His  arrest. 

But  "  what  further  need  have  we  of  witness  ?  "  In  a 
very  short  time,  and  quite  openly,  this  was  the  cry  of  the 
president  of  the  Sanhedrin.  And  this,  and  not  that  of 
the  Accused,  was  a  veritable  confession. 

It  might  also  be  remarked  that  the  proposition  when 
restored  to  the  textual  form  of  the  Evangelist,  by  whom 
it  is  alone  reported,  is  not  the  threat  of  any  evil,  but 
the  promise  or  boast  of  a  benefit  such  as  certainly  would 
have  been  the  restoration  of  the  temple,  which  the  Jews 
had  taken  six  and  forty  years  to  build. 

But  in  reality  Jesus  neither  prophesied  nor  provoked 
the  fall  of  the  temple :  He  merely  made  it  a.  supposition. 
Thus  it  was  impossible  to  consider  Him  a  false  prophet 
endeavouring  to  lead  astray  believers  in  Jehovah,  nor  an 
inventor  of  dreams,  who  gave  Himself  out  for  one  of 
those  that  can  read  the  future,  seeing  that  He  never 
professed  to  see  in  dreams  aught  that  was  contrary  to 
the  "  promise  "  and  the  common  faith. 

But  it  is  useless  to  spend  time  upon  a  charge  which  was 
inwardly  abandoned  before  the  Sanhedrin  itself.  And 
it  is  therefore  also  useless  to  waste  time  in  showing  that 
silence  of  the  Accused  could  not  be  substituted  to  make 
up  for  the  want  of  proof,  which  rendered  it  necessary 
to  throw  up  the  charge.  No  exponent  of  the  Mosaic 
law  could  ever  have  thought  that  such  a  substitution 
would  be  efficacious.  By  the  Mosaic  law  even  an  explicit 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        187 

confession  did  not  suffice  unless  the  crime  admitted  were 
first  proved  by  means  of  witnesses.  Afterwards,  if 
Pilate  had  had  to  give  judgment  in  the  case  of  a  silent 
prisoner,  he  would  have  declared  with  the  text  of  the 
Roman  jurisconsult  who  had  at  that  time  already  made 
utterance:  Qui  tacet  non  utique  fatetur?3  Jesus  was 
silent  when  He  might  have  defended  Himself :  He  spoke 
when  He  could  inculpate  Himself. 

Nevertheless  the  Breton  biographer  persists  in  main- 
taining that  it  was  the  first  charge  and  not  the  second 
which  brought  about  the  condemnation  of  the  Nazarene, 
and  this  too  owing  to  His  silence.  "  To  blaspheme  the 
temple  of  God,"  says  Renan,  "  was,  according  to  the 
Judaic  law,  to  blaspheme  God  Himself;  Jesus  stood  in 
silence  and  refused  to  explain  the  expression  charged 
against  Him.  If  we  are  to  believe  one  account,  the  chief 
priest  then  adjured  Him  to  say  whether  He  was  the 
Messiah,  and  Jesus  then  confessed,  proclaiming  before 
the  assembly  the  approaching  advent  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom.  But  as  He  was  determined  to  die,  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  did  not  call  for  this  testimony.  It  is  much  more 
likely  that  here  too,  even  as  before  Hanan,  He  held  His 
peace.  This  was  His  rule  of  conduct  in  the  last  mo- 
ments." 4  But  the  art  of  probabilities,  to  which  indeed 
the  writer,  having  already  made  up  his  mind,  does  not 
even  give  support,  gives  way  before  the  testimony  of 
history.  S.  Mark  and  S.  Matthew  supply  us  mth  the 
very  details  of  Jesus's  final  declaration  that  He  was  the 
Messiah;  and  to  theirs  S.  Luke  also  adds  his  report, 
although  he  refers  the  statement  to  the  second  audience 
before  the  Sanhedrin.5 

There  is  no  question  then  of  giving  credence  to  a  mere 
story,  but  to  allegations  which  are  not  confuted  by  any 
others.  Renan  imagines  that  he  has  discovered  a  con- 
futation in  the  account  of  the  fourth  Evangelist,  who 


188        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

does  not  indeed  discuss  the  motives  of  Jesus's  condemna- 
tion, but  limits  himself  to  recording  the  first  words 
spoken  by  Him  to  Caiaphas,  without  any  allusion  to  His 
Messianic  declaration.  But  S.  John  is  also  silent  as  to 
the  first  charge  concerning  the  destruction  of  the  temple ; 
and  one  must  also  admit  that  to  rely  on  him  in  order  to 
impugn  what  we  are  told  by  the  others  is  practically 
building  in  the  air,  or  is  at  least  to  prefer  one  negative 
to  three  positive  data.  But  the  three  Synoptics  are 
unable  to  convince  Renan  because  they  were  not  present 
at  the  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin.  Was,  then,  Renan 
there  ? 

And  amongst  those  at  all  events  who  can  claim  to  have 
been  nearer  to  the  event,  who  is  there  who  furnishes  us 
with  contrary  evidence?  Not  S.  John,  for  he  says  noth- 
ing. No  other  narrators,  for  such  are  unknown  to  us. 
The  Synoptics,  then,  alone  remain. 

The  thesis  of  Renan  is  directed  towards  a  very  mani- 
fest object — the  object,  in  fact,  which  is  reflected 
throughout  the  whole  of  this  "  extraordinary  "  work,  as 
the  author  himself  describes  it.  His  aim  is  to  con- 
tradict all  the  Messianic  resemblances  of  the  Nazarene. 
Every  one  knows  whither  the  spirit  and  need  of  contra- 
diction lead.  "  Jesus,"  we  read  in  the  first  pages  of  the 
book,  "  never  gave  expression  to  the  sacrilegious  idea 
that  He  was  God."  6  As  at  this  point  the  writer  finds 
himself  confronted  no  longer  with  pliant  resemblances  or 
with  apostolic  fictions,  which  may  be  confuted,  as  to  the 
Messianic  character  of  the  Master,  but  finds  himself  face 
to  face  with  an  original  and  explicit  affirmation,  he  dis- 
torts the  data  furnished  by  tradition,  turns  them  upside 
down,  denies  without  confuting,  asserts  without  proof, 
and  contradicts  himself  once  again.  All  this  is  un- 
worthy even  of  an  "  extraordinary  "  book.  Whosoever 
admits  his  very  remarkable  genius  and  learning  need  not 


THE    TRIAL'   OF   JESUS        189 

j 

feel  the  more  discouraged  by  this  recognition  when  he 
reflects  that  a  man  truly  distinguished,  immortal  per- 
haps, in  attempting  to  back  up  the  foregone  conclusion 
of  a  case  to  be  defended  may  fall,  whilst  overwhelming 
us  with  authorities  and  contradictions,  lower  than  the 
humblest  commentator  of  a  criminal  case. 

If  the  Treguier  seminarist  differed  from  such  ascetics 
as  say,  "  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  because  He  Himself 
declared  it,"  he  was  not  under  any  necessity  to  jeopard- 
ise his  scientific  dignity  by  employing  his  speculative 
genius  in  puerile  hair-splitting.  He  might  have  said,  as 
any  bond-fide  critic  would  say,  and  with  proportionately 
greater  effect:  If  Jesus  was  not  really  the  Son  of  God, 
He  might  nevertheless  have  declared  Himself  to  be  so. 
This  does  not  in  any  way  suffice  to  show  that  He  was. 
It  was  quite  clear  that  the  position  of  the  ascetics  which 
had  to  be  combated  involved  a  petitio  principii,  and  in 
order  to  combat  it  there  was  no  necessity  whatever  to 
have  recourse  to  logical  errors  a  hundred  times  worse. 
It  was  therefore  not  the  first  but  the  second  charge  which 
decided  the  fate  of  the  Accused. 

It  was  unjust,  as  we  shall  show,  but  in  its  material 
foundation  it  was  true,  for  Jesus  had  really  declared 
Himself  to  be  the  Messiah.  This  truth  should  have  been 
proved  by  means  of  witnesses,  notwithstanding  the  avowal 
of  the  Accused.  But  this  concerns  the  question  of  pro- 
cedure, which  has  been  already  treated,  and  does  not  rest 
upon  the  merits  of  the  case  now  under  discussion.  What 
was  imputed  to  Jesus  in  the  second  count  of  the  accusa- 
tion was  true,  and  we  are  right  in  repeating  this.  He 
had  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  though  all 
the  same  such  a  declaration  could  not  give  rise  to  a  con- 
demnation for  blasphemy. 

To  the  demand  of  the  high  priest,  "  Art  Thou  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  the  Accused  replied,  according 


190        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

to  S.  Matthew,  "  Thou  hast  said " ;  according  to  S. 
Mark,  "  I  am."  And  according  to  the  first  he  added, 
"  Nevertheless,  I  say  unto  you,  Henceforth  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven " ;  according  to  the 
second,  "  Ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  "  thou  hast 
said"  (tu  dwcisti)  of  S.  Matthew  is  equivalent  to  the 
"I  am"  (ego  sum)  of  S.  Mark,  and  the  practically 
identical  words  which  both  of  them  add,  prove  the 
affirmative  meaning  of  the  reply.  S.  Luke,  referring 
constantly  to  the  second  audience  before  the  Sanhedrin 
and  not  to  the  first,  which  he  omits,  blends,  as  if  on 
purpose,  the  two  answers  into  one :  "  And  they  all 
said,  Art  Thou  then  the  Son  of  God?  And  He  said 
unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am"  (Vos  dicitis  quia  ego 
sum).7  S.  John  is  silent,  because  he  condenses  into 
one  the  account  of  the  whole  trial  from  the  examination 
before  Hanan  as  to  the  disciples  and  teaching  of  Jesus  8 
down  to  the  time  when  Hanan  conducted  Him  to  the 
Praetorium,  which  event  took  place  in  the  morning.9 

"  He  hath  spoken  blasphemy,"  declared  the  high 
priest,  and  he  spoke  no  further  word  in  support  of 
his  decision.  "  He  is  worthy  of  death,"  said  the  whole 
Sanhedrin  passing  sentence,  and  this,  without  any  species 
of  justification,  was  the  sentence  of  death. 

In  order  that  we  may  discover  whether  such  a  sentence 
was  just,  or  how  far  it  was  just,  we  must  necessarily 
learn  what  was  the  Hebrew  notion  regarding  the  Messiah, 
and  we  must,  above  all,  try  and  find  out  whether  the 
judges  in  Jerusalem  had  any  reasonable  justification  for 
excluding  the  possibility  without  any  discussion  of  the 
Messiah  being  Jesus  Himself.  It  is  in  their  predeter- 
mined, fanatical,  and  precipitate  exclusion  of  this  possi- 


THE    TRIAL1   OF   JESUS        191 

bility  that  lies  the  whole  iii justice  of  the  second  charge 
and  of  the  resulting  condemnation  of  Jesus. 

In  the  downward  path  of  life  towards  death  man 
suffers,  and  in  its  own  life  of  centuries  humanity 
accumulates  and  multiplies  within  itself  these  sufferings 
of  his.  In  answer  to  a  supreme  need  for  peace  and 
rest,  good  reveals  itself  to  the  suffering  in  continuous 
and  warring  contrast  with  evil.  Science,  with  proof 
drawn  from  every-day  experience,  teaches  us  that  in 
this  unequal  fight  the  best  victory  is  but  the  balancing 
of  the  two  forces,  and  that  even  in  this  difficult  state 
of  equilibrium  peace  and  repose  are  not  attained.  But 
hope,  which  is  the  stimulus  of  the  fight,  furnishes  each 
day,  each  hour  anew,  the  martyred  but  unvanquished 
soul  with  fresh  needs  and  fresh  confidence,  and  in  its 
sense  of  inadaptability  to  pain  it  seeks  and  traces  up 
the  inner  secret  of  its  boundless  aspirations. 

This  secret  has  its  own  language  made  up  of  symbols 
and  metaphors ;  and  a  people  warred  against,  persecuted, 
and  exhausted,  as  is  humanity  taken  all  in  all,  speaks 
the  language  which  its  own  nature  and  its  individual 
history  have  given  it,  and  invokes  and  shapes  to  itself 
under  the  forms  of  symbol  and  metaphor  a  superhuman 
deliverer  from  its  long  and  restless  sufferings,  a  deliv- 
erer who  is  none  other  than  man  himself  victorious, 
humanity  itself  which  triumphs  in  hope  and  imagination. 
In  the  case  of  the  Hebrew  people  such  a  deliverer,  so 
conceived  and  so  invoked,  is  the  Messiah. 

The  Redeemer  that  is  to  arise  in  the  land  of  Israel 
is  indeed  a  man,  but  so  powerful  as  to  make  Himself 
almost  God:  for  the  Christian  world,  on  the  contrary, 
the  Redeemer,  already  come  down  to  earth,  is  a  God, 
but  so  compassionate  that  He  makes  Himself  man.  It 
is  the  craving,  long  restrained,  for  national  vengeance, 
which  causes  the  Hebrew  people  to  deify  its  avenger: 


192         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

it  is  the  deep-felt  longing  for  universal  peace  which 
causes  the  Christian  world  to  humanise  its  God.  In 
the  latter  case  imagination  is  kindled  by  the  recent 
constitution  of  the  Empire;  that  melancholy  feeling 
which  fills  men's  minds,  after  a  long  trial  of  revolutions, 
arouses  limitless  hopes.  A  new  era  of  peace  has 
begun:  tender,  clear-sighted  Virgil  appears  like  a  secret 
echo  of  the  second  Isaiah;  the  birth  of  a  man-child 
stirs  in  him  visions  of  universal  palingenesis.10 

But  if  it  is  needful  to  remark  the  deep  abyss  between 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Christian  beliefs  concerning  the 
same  subject  of  faith,  this  does  not  mean  to  say  that, 
at  the  time  of  the  mock  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin, 
broader  and  mutually  different  ideas  as  to  the  Messiah 
were  not  already  beginning  to  shape  themselves — ideas 
which  lent  themselves  to  the  most  free  identification  of 
the  Messiah.  The  coming  of  a  deliverer,  summoned 
by  the  Eternal,  was  not  expected  by  all  after  the  same 
manner  or  in  the  person  of  a  single  messenger  or  even 
of  two :  so  that  the  criterion  of  elimination  became  ever 
more  problematical  and  perilous.  The  most  common 
Messianic  dogma  was  that  of  a  national,  political,  and 
religious  deliverer,  who  should  appear  as  a  descendant 
of  the  dynasty  of  King  David,  who  should  come  to  lead 
back  again  to  Palestine  all  the  Jews  scattered  over  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  who  should  re-establish  the  king- 
dom of  the  Davidic  line,  build  the  temple  anew  and  set 
up  his  throne  in  the  holy  city,  whence  he  should  convert 
all  peoples  to  the  religion  of  Jerusalem.  There  was, 
nevertheless,  not  wanting  in  the  Messianic  conception 
of  the  prophets  and  theologians  of  Hebrew  literature 
the  mythical  form  of  a  Messiah  who  was  to  shed  His 
spirit  over  all  flesh  and  inaugurate  an  era  of  perfect 
peace  and  justice  upon  earth.11  With  a  Messiah  of  this 
type  Jesus  of  Nazareth  might  be  fully  identified.  It 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         193 

Was  not  necessary  to  think  that  such  an  identity  was  a 
sacrilege  and  an  audacious  invention  of  Jesus  Himself, 
who  was  therefore  to  be  held  guilty  of  blasphemy. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Nicodemus  and  other  educated 
Hebrews  of  that  time  believed  firmly  in  such  an 
identity,  and  notwithstanding  their  perfect  acquaintance 
with  the  Messianic  beliefs  of  their  people,  they  recog- 
nised in  Him  the  Son  of  God.  The  most  ancient  Chris- 
tian Churches,  which  began  to  profess  this  conviction, 
did  not  found  it  elsewhere  than  in  the  Canon  of  that 
Scripture  which  was  the  text  of  Hebrew  meditation  and 
Hebrew  faith.  From  the  passage  in  Genesis  which  has 
been  called  the  Proto-Gospel,  and  in  which  God  pro- 
claims to  the  Serpent,  to  the  spirit  of  evil,  his  punish- 
ment, down  to  the  Book  of  Daniel,  in  which  the  prophet 
shows  four  great  empires,  depicted  each  with  its  dis- 
tinctive character ;  from  the  Pentateuch  to  the  Psalms ; 
from  the  Psalms  to  the  Prophets ;  from  the  Prophets 
to  the  closing  pages  of  Hebrew  traditional  literature, 
in  which  are  completed  the  initiatory  signs  of  a  Messiah, 
son  of  Joseph,  suffering,  calumniated,  crucified — Chris- 
tianity gathers  the  Messianic  predictions  from  amidst 
this  intellectual  and  sentimental  patrimony  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  Hebrews.  This  is  tantamount  to  say- 
ing that  the  identification  of  the  Messiah  should  have 
appeared  to  calm  and  unbiassed  judges  as  a  matter  to  be 
discussed,  if  not  to  be  decided  in  favour  of  the  Accused, 
who  with  His  eyes  fixed  upon  the  Cross  declared  Him- 
self to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  Man.  To  have  not 
discussed  it,  to  have  denied  it  without  debate,  constitutes 
the  whole  injustice  of  the  second  charge  and  of  the 
condemnation. 

It  would  be  an  easy  thing  to  enter  into  a  minute 
exegesis  of  the  Messianic  data  which  can  be  drawn  from 
the  biblical  writings,  but  it  would  at  the  same  time  be 


194         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

useless,  because,  however  far-reaching  such  an  investi- 
gation might  be,  it  would  be  throughout  necessary  to 
admit  that  the  judges  of  Jerusalem  might  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  those  data  did  not  tally  with  the 
character  and  mission  of  Jesus  by  a  logical  process  of 
appreciation  and  conviction  which  entirely  depended 
upon  the  impressionability  and  good  faith  of  the  judges. 

The  decision,  although  unfavourable  to  the  Accused, 
would  have  been  in  quite  judicial  form,  if  it  had  been 
based  on  the  result  of  the  analysis  and  synthesis  requi- 
site to  a  judgment. 

On  the  other  hand,  any  censure  directed  against  this 
decision  merely  because  the  evaluation  of  the  points  of 
Messianic  comparison  might  have  led  others  (i.e.  all 
Christians  believing  in  the  supernatural  character  of  the 
Nazarene)  to  an  opposite  conclusion,  would  be  in  judi- 
cial. The  error  of  the  judge,  when  it  is  caused  not  by 
any  perversion  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  but  upon  their 
wrong  evaluation,  finds  complete  justification  on  the 
score  of  human  imperfection,  which  moreover  is  shared 
also  by  him  who  judges  the  work  of  the  judge. 

But  before  the  Sanhedrin  the  judgment  was  determined 
neither  by  analysis  nor  synthesis  even  of  the  most  per- 
functory kind.  Who,  amongst  the  judges,  asked  him- 
self who  Jesus  was,  whence  He  came,  and  what  was  the 
mission  to  which  He  was  called?  Not  one.  Who  of 
them,  despite  their  belief  in  the  supernatural,  ever  raised 
the  problem  of  the  Accused's  divinity  ?  Not  one.  Who 
among  them  investigated  the  personal  features  of  the 
son  of  Joseph,  born  at  Bethlehem,  whence  the  majority 
looked  for  the  Messiah  to  come?  Nobody  ever  ques- 
tioned the  Accused.  Who  amongst  them  all  subjected 
even  to  superficial  examination  the  evidence  of  those  who 
had  occupied  themselves  with  the  Messianic  qualities, 
rightly  or  wrongly  attributed  to  the  Nazarene?  No- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         195 

body  mentioned  them,  much  less  made  of  them  the  sub- 
ject of  examination  or  discussion.  The  question  was 
not  even  posed,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  the 
trial  was  not  even  based  on  the  essential  elements  of 
investigation  and  elaboration,  but  that  prejudice  and 
predetermined  judgment  reigned  in  their  place. 

The  problem  was  one  to  be  debated  with  an  inclination 
to  believe  and  not  to  be  rejected  with  a  predetermined 
contradiction.  For  if  Jesus  had  appeared  before  non- 
Hebrew  judges  of  another  day,  judges  who  had  not 
looked  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  according  to  the 
varied  and  warring  hypotheses  of  the  Jewish  faith,  a 
predetermined  contradiction  in  a  criminal  trial  might 
have  been  palliated  but  not  justified.  But  those  mystic, 
superstitious,  sophistical  judges,  who  expected  a  deliv- 
erer, were  wrong  in  passing  over,  in  so  off-hand  a  man- 
ner, the  fame  and  Messianic  indications  gathered  about 
the  mystic  person  of  the  Nazarene.  They  were  wrong, 
unless  we  adhere  to  the  conclusion  already  pointed  out, 
that  it  was  no  trial  which  was  initiated  before  the  San- 
hedrin  but  a  destruction  that  was  plotted.  Well  might 
the  Jews  have  awaited  their  Anointed,  and  well  may 
they  do  so  to-day,  if  upon  each  one  who  announced 
himself,  and  approximately  at  least  revealed  himself  for 
such,  the  judges  of  Jerusalem  executed  summary  justice 
as  they  did  upon  Jesus.  Such  justice  is  irrevocably  con- 
demned by  two  contrary  historical  sources:  on  the  one 
hand  by  Scripture,  tradition,  and  the  varied  belief  of 
the  Judaism  of  the  time,  which  at  all  events  rendered 
the  Messianic  identity  of  the  prisoner  of  the  Sanhedrin 
matter  for  dispute  and  discussion;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  condemned  by  the  spontaneous  and  almost  imme- 
diate belief  of  Christianity,  which  for  nineteen  centuries 
has  uninterruptedly  professed  its  faith  that  the  Accused 
was  the  Son  of  God,  revealed  by  precisely  those  initia- 


196        THE   TRIAL'  OF  JESUS 

tory  signs  and  outward  indications  which  the  Hebrews 
have  ascribed  to  the  Messiah. 

To-day  the  orthodox  Jew  and  the  Christian  rationalist 
may  believe  that  Christianity  has  long  deceived  itself 
in  asserting  this  belief,  and  that  the  rejection  by  Juda- 
ism was  founded  upon  the  truth.  But  this  inward 
thought  is  of  no  account  in  justifying  the  judges  of 
the  Sanhedrin.  The  orthodox  Jew  and  the  Christian 
rationalist  might  not  only  pardon,  but  even  approve 
them,  if  they  had  condemned  Jesus  upon  a  recognised 
principle,  with  due  spontaneity  and  form  of  procedure, 
but  this  is  not  what  occurred,  and  no  excuse  is  given. 
They  denied  Jesus  to  be  that  which  He  declared  Himself 
to  be,  but  they  did  not  inquire  who  He  was,  they  did 
not  examine  whether  the  facts  of  His  character  and  of 
His  mission  corresponded  with  those  upon  which  con- 
temporary superstition  founded  the  Messianic  identity. 
They  did  not  back  their  denial  by  proof  either  in  the 
nature  of  comparison  or  of  elimination,  although  that 
which  they  denied  was  what  was  generally  and  firmly 
believed.  And  while  they  did  not  take  even  into  sum- 
mary consideration  the  statement  of  the  Accused,  which 
they  set  aside  as  a  folly  not  meriting  discussion,  they 
based  upon  it  the  proof  and  substantial  fact  of  a  crime 
which  should  always  be  looked  for  in  the  free  and  spon- 
taneous tenour  of  a  man's  life,  and  not  in  the  inviolable 
exercise  of  his  defence. 

But  for  Jerusalem  the  destruction  of  a  man  was  ex- 
pedient, and  that  is  sufficient  reason  for  political  justice. 

NOTES. 

1  S.  John  ii.  19:    "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up." 

2  S.Johnii.21. 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS        197 

3  1.  142,  Dig.     De  regulis  juris,  L.  17. 

4  Vie,  ch.  v. 

5  xxii.  66. 

6  Vie,  ch.  v.  at  beginning.     Here  we  also  encounter  the  adjec- 
tive bizarre  applied  by  the  author  to  his  book. 

7  xxii.  70. 

8  xviii.  19. 

9  xviii.  28. 

10  Renan,  Vie,  ch.  i.    These  visions  (again  remarks  Renan) 
were  not  rare,  and  composed  a  literature  apart,  which  was  known 
under  the  name  of  the  Sybillce;  the  Cumceum  carmen  in  Eclogue 
IV.  was  a  species  of  Sybilline  Apocalypse,  which  bore  the  imprint 
of  the  philosophy  familiar  to  the  East  (I.e. ;  cf.  Servius,  Ad  carmina 
sybillina ;  Suetonius,  Aug.). 

11  Sa  'adja  (Emunoth  Vede  oth — Faith  and  Science)  and  Judah 
Levita  (Cuzari,  i.  67)  were  among  the  most  learned  Hebrews  who 
have  given  us  dissertations  on  the  Messianic  hypothesis.     Mai- 
monides  (Commentary  on  the  Mishna  Sanhedrin,  cap.  x.  or  xi. 
according  to  other  editions,  par.  1),  who  in  the  twelfth  century 
reorganised  Mosaism,  and  provided  us  with  precise  criteria  of 
Messianism;    Chasdai  Kreskas  (Light  of  God)  fiercely  opposed 
Maimonides  in  the  fourteenth  century  and  brought  forward  hy- 
potheses entirely  contradicting  him.     Albo  (Fundamental  Dog- 
mas) in  the  fifteenth  century  simplified  the  Hebrew  religion  and 
reduced  all  its  dogmas  to  three;    Akiba  (T.  B.  Berachoth,  616) 
under  Emperor  Hadrian  was  the  author  of  the  second  Talmudic 
phase,  which  tends  to  abandon  all  the  broader  and  more  tolerant 
principles  professed  by  the  more  ancient  rabbis,  and  especially  by 
Hillel  and  his  grandson,  the  elder  Gamaliel.      Cf.  Abrabanel, 
Rosh  Amana,  cap.  ii ;  Luzzatto,  Lezioni  di  teologia  dogmatica,  p. 
37  et  seq. ;  Castelli,  //  Messia  secondo  gli  ebrei  (Florence,  Le  Mon- 
nier,  1874) ;   and  Conti,  //  Messia,  redentore  vaticinato,  uomo  de' 
dolori,  re  della  gloria  (Florence,  Libr.  Salesiana,  1903) — an  ex- 
ceedingly senile  "  operetta  "  by  the  venerable  philosopher,  "quasi 
viatico  per  I'  altra  vita."     Castelli  remarks  authoritatively,  syn- 
thesising  these  numberless  divergent  hypotheses:     "  It  is  impos- 
sible to  deduce  from  Hebrew  theology  any  decided  opinion  as  to 
its  dogmas,  seeing  that  the  most  authoritative  writers  of  treatises 


198         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

are  in  disharmony  amongst  themselves  and  no  authority  superior 
to  them  has  so  far  arisen,  nor  could  it  arise,  either  to  conciliate 
them  or  to  pronounce  which  opinions  shall  be  accepted  and  which 
rejected.  However  divergent  and  varying  they  may  be,  they  are 
equally  accepted  as  orthodox  within  Judaism;  .  .  .  the  prevalence, 
if  not  by  right,  at  any  rate  in  fact,  will  be  with  the  opinion  of  Mai- 
monides  and  will  stop  any  liberty  of  discussion,  if  not  amongst  the 
learned,  at  any  rate  amongst  the  people.  In  that  way  all  the  im- 
mense labour  done  by  Maimonides  with  regard  to  the  reorganisa- 
tion of  Judaism  has  ever  since  done  more  harm  than  good  .  .  . 
that  contradiction,  that  disorder,  that  want  of  unity,  formed,  it  is 
true,  a  most  confused  chaos  in  Hebrew  tradition;  in  opportune 
time  and  conditions  it  will  produce  a  genius  which  will  create  a 
new  cosmos.  Dialectics  and  scholasticism,  while  pretending  to 
bring  order  into  the  chaos,  have  made  it  a  necropolis.  In  lieu  of  a 
broad  interpretation  of  the  rights  and  of  the  laws  was  substituted 
a  formalism,  admirable  indeed  in  its  logic  and  order,  but  pre- 
cisionist  and  full  of  minutiae,  leaving  not  a  trace  of  free  decision. 
Instead  of  a  free  discussion,  opposing  opinion  to  opinion,  they 
placed  a  conciliation,  full  of  cavil,  of  the  Hebrew  religion  with  the 
Aristotelianism  of  the  Arabs.  The  free  examination  of  each  in- 
dividual was  replaced  by  thirteen  articles  of  faith,  indetermined 
in  their  minute  precision  and  barren  in  their  love  of  copious  detail. 
And  that  was  the  work  of  Maimonides,  perhaps  the  greatest  ge- 
nius of  his  times,  worthy  of  comparison  with  the  greatest  of  all  ages, 
the  true  Thomas  Aquinas  of  Hebraism;  but  in  whom  the  Arabian 
philosophy  and  scholasticism,  which  was  embraced  by  all  intel- 
lects, created  the  belief  that  man  had  reached  the  Pillars  of  Her- 
cules of  knowledge  and  that  all  human  and  divine  science  might 
be  gathered  up  by  one  man  in  one  Summa  in  order  to  say  to  hu- 
manity; *  Lo,  here  is  the  perpetual  norm  or  model  of  all  faiths 
and  of  all  action.'  In  those  times,  perhaps,  the  work  of  such  por- 
tentous men  did  not  do  much  harm — at  any  rate,  people  might 
have  admired  the  variety  and  the  dexterity  of  their  genius,  the 
abundance  and  profundity  of  their  knowledge.  But  since  then 
the  centuries  have  proved  that  their  work  was  not  sufficient,  and 
the  upheaval  of  the  Reformation  has  rendered  the  Summce  of  scho- 
lasticism impossible  in  the  Protestant  Church.  In  Hebraism, 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        199 

where  no  reformer  has  arisen  to  renovate  or  purify  the  atmos- 
phere, that  Summa  of  Maimonides,  which  formerly  might  ser- 
iously appear  as  a  body  of  admirable  structure,  has  since  become 
not  only  obsolete  and  dead,  but  also  so  thoroughly  morbid  that  the 
whole  of  the  atmosphere  of  Hebraism  has  been  diseased  by  it  " 
(Introduzz.  pp.  17-23). 


CHAPTER   XV 

In  which  it  is  shown  that  the  Sentence  ascribed  to  the  Sanhedrin 
was  not  a  Judicial  Sentence — How  in  the  Alleged  Sentence 
there  is  no  Indication  of  the  Kind  of  Punishment — How  not 
one  of  the  Evangelists  treats  of  a  Real  Sentence — Exposition 
of  the  Mosaic  Penal  System  in  order  to  deduce  what  would 
have  been  the  Punishment  applicable  to  Jesus — The  Various 
Forms  of  Capital  Punishment:  Hanging,  Stoning,  Burning, 
Decapitation — Preventive  Imprisonment — Fine  and  Flagel- 
lation— The  Crimes  Punishable  with  Death — How  for  the 
Crime  of  Blasphemy  stoning  was  decreed — It  is  concluded 
that  had  Jesus  been  condemned  by  the  Sanhedrin  He  would 
have  been  stoned. 

THE  verdict  was  unanimous.  The  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin who  were  secretly  favourable  to  the  Accused  were 
either  absent  or  else  they  voted  against  Him.  Nico- 
demus  was  amongst  the  absentees,  or  amongst  those  that 
voted  against  Him.  At  all  events  he  did  not  raise  his 
voice  against  the  pronouncement  expressed  by  accla- 
mation. But  the  condemnation  made  no  mention  of 
any  species  of  capital  punishment.  This  in  itself  would 
suffice  to  make  clear  the  view  which  has  already  been 
advanced — namely,  that  this  pronouncement  was  no 
regular  verdict,  but  simply  a  charge  which  alone  could 
be  deliberated  upon  by  the  Sanhedrin.  According  to 
S.  Matthew,  those  present  confined  themselves  to  cry- 
ing, subsequently  to  the  remark  of  the  high  priest  with 
regard  to  tbe  blasphemy  attributed  to  Jesus,  "  He  is 
worthy  of  death."  1  According  to  S.  Luke,  they  did 
not  even  go  so  far  as  this.  They  remarked  unjustly 

200 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        201 

that  there  was  no  further  need  of  witnesses ;  and  there- 
upon "  the  whole  company  rose  up,  and  brought  Him 
before  Pilate,  and  they  began  to  accuse  Him."  2  In 
S.  John  there  is  no  indication  of  any  pronouncement 
whatsoever.  Immediately  after  the  denial  by  S.  Peter 
and  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  those  assembled  "  led  Jesus 
.  .  .  from  Caiaphas  into  the  palace." 3  S.  Mark 
alone  declares  that  after  the  blasphemy  "  they  all  con- 
demned Him  to  be  worthy  of  death."  4  But  a  solitary 
remark  of  so  vague  a  description  does  not  suffice  to  cor- 
roborate the  idea  of  a  condemnation,  except  of  an  irreg- 
ular, merely  moral  kind,  susceptible  in  its  judicial  sense 
alone  of  being  considered  an  accusation,  especially  if 
we  reflect  that  there  is  a  complete  absence  of  any  indica- 
tion as  to  the  species  of  punishment. 

It  is  true  that  Hebrew  law  in  threatening  death  does 
not  always  refer  to  the  precise  manner  of  the  punishment. 
This,  however,  is  not  so  in  the  case  of  the  crime  of 
blasphemy,  which,  as  we  shall  come  to  see,  was  expressly 
punished  with  stoning.  This  furnishes  us  with  an  occa- 
sion for  discussing  the  penal  system  according  to  Mosaic 
law. 

Scriptural  law,  as  we  know  from  the  Pentateuch /em- 
braced three  varieties  of  punishment :  death,  flagellation, 
and  fine.  Imprisonment,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  Book 
of  Kings  5  and  in  Jeremiah,6  was  not  employed  as  a 
penalty  but  merely  as  a  means  of  custody.  It  is  to  in- 
carceration of  this  kind  that  S.  Peter  must  have  alluded 
at  the  Master's  Last  Supper  when  he  boasted  that  he 
was  ready  to  go  to  prison  for  Him,7  though  he  was  to 
shirk  even  this  misfortune  in  the  hour  of  peril. 

The  ergastulum,  in  which  prisoners  suffered  life-long 
detention  of  a  most  severe  description,  was  rightly  re- 
served for  habitual  criminals  of  the  most  obstinate  type, 
and  is  not  to  be  met  with  in  the  Pentateuch,8  but  only 


202        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

among  the  novelties  introduced  by  the  compilers  of  the 
Talmud,  who  were  always  on  the  look-out  for  any  means 
of  circumscribing  the  death  penalty.9 

A  form  of  capital  punishment  frequently  employed 
was  hanging.  It  might  even  seem  that  this  should  be 
considered  the  extreme  penalty  par  excellence,  and  as 
that  which  should  be  understood  in  every  case  where 
the  law,  while  threatening  certain  crimes  with  capital 
punishment,  did  not  indicate  any  particular  mode  of 
death.  A  provision  of  Deuteronomy  seems  to  bear  this 
out :  "  And  if  a  man  have  committed  a  sin  worthy  of 
death,  and  he  be  put  to  death,  and  thou  hang  him  on 
the  tree;  his  body  shall  not  remain  all  night  upon  the 
tree,  but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that  day ; 
(for  he  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God)  ;  that  thy 
land  be  not  defiled,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee 
for  an  inheritance."  10  This  passage  has  been  viewed 
by  some  interpreters  in  the  sense  that  hanging  was  not 
the  first  and  essential  form  of  capital  punishment,  but 
that  it  was  an  act  of  despite  done  to  the  body  of  the 
criminal  who  had  already  been  put  to  death  by  some 
other  method  of  execution.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact 
there  would  be  no  historical  absurdity  in  this  superflu- 
ous outrage  upon  a  prisoner  already  dead.  Such  a 
course  has  frequently  been  adopted  with  exquisite  legis- 
lative ferocity  for  the  purpose  of  causing  the  greatest 
public  terror  and  of  making  the  punishment  even  more 
exemplary.11  But  an  outrage  of  this  character  would 
have  been  in  obvious  contradiction  to  the  meticulous  and 
superstition  feelings  with  which  the  Jews  were  satu- 
rated regarding  dead  bodies,  not  only  from  ancient  and 
deep-rooted  tradition,  but  also  owing  precisely  to  this 
provision  of  the  law.  If  it  is  here  laid  down  that  he 
that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God,  and  that  the  expos- 
ure of  his  body  during  the  night  brings  pollution  on  the 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        203 

land  of  Jehovah,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  hanging 
would  have  been  adopted  as  a  superfluous  mode  of  exe- 
cution over  and  beyond  that  strictly  necessary  to  bring 
about  the  death  of  the  condemned.  Outrage  and  respect 
for  a  corpse  would  be  contradictory  terms  in  one  and 
the  same  legal  provision.  The  superstitious  ideas  pre- 
vailing among  the  Hebrews  concerning  the  defilement  of 
bodies  were  advanced  as  the  reason  why  those  could  not 
serve  as  priests  of  the  sanctuary  who  had  contracted 
pollution  through  the  death  of  their  fellow-citizens,  or 
even  of  the  prince.  They  were  unclean  if  only  they 
had  touched  the  body  or  even  if  they  had  merely  fol- 
lowed its  obsequies,  or  entered  the  house  in  which  it 
lay.12  When  the  body  of  a  murdered  man  was  found 
and  the  author  of  the  crime  was  not  discovered,  an 
expiatory  sacrifice  in  order  to  obtain  impunity  from  this 
pollution  was  required  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
nearest  to  the  spot  in  which  the  corpse  had  been  found.13 
Moreover,  if  hanging  was  merely  a  posthumous  and  ac- 
cessory form  of  execution,  what  was  the  principal  method 
adopted  for  crimes  for  which  the  law  prescribed  only 
the  penalty  of  hanging? 

Those  learned  in  the  Talmud,  under  the  pretence  of 
gathering  up  a  traditionary  law  supposed  to  have  ex- 
isted side  by  side  with  the  written  law,  have  distorted 
the  most  characteristic  penal  regulations.  In  main- 
taining the  merely  accessory  employment  of  hanging, 
they  imagined  that  the  principal  method  of  execution 
was  by  means  of  a  process  of  strangulation.14 

But  the  text  of  Deuteronomy  alone,  which  we  have 
cited  above,  speaks  of  a  process  of  strangulation,  and 
that  too  in  reference  to  hanging.  Of  strangulation 
pure  and  simple  there  is  no  mention  here  or  elsewhere. 
Posthumous  hanging  was  therefore  a  mere  piece  of 
imagination  on  the  part  of  the  Talmudists, 


204         THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

A  manner  of  putting  to  death  more  frequently  re- 
sorted to  in  the  case  of  various  crimes  was  stoning. 
This  was  carried  out  in  two  manners.  The  prisoner 
was  either  buried  among  the  stones,  the  witnesses  by 
whom  he  had  been  accused  being  compelled  to  throw 
first,  or  else  he  was  led  to  the  summit  of  a  high  rock, 
from  which  one  of  the  two  accusing  witnesses  cast  him 
down,  while  the  other  rolled  over  a  huge  stone  upon 
his  body.  After  this,  if  he  was  not  already  killed, 
stones  were  cast  at  him  till  he  was  quite  dead.  Both 
of  these  executions  were  probably  accompanied  by  the 
forms  recorded  for  us  by  the  rabbin  of  the  Talmud. 
The  condemned  was  led  out  of  the  city  preceded  by 
an  emissary  of  the  Sanhedrin,  holding  in  his  hands  a 
pike  from  which  fluttered  a  banner  intended  to  call  the 
attention  of  anybody  having  anything  to  propose  in 
justification  of  the  prisoner.  If  any  one  put  himself 
forward,  the  whole  procession  came  to  a  standstill,  and 
the  condemned  was  remanded  to  prison. 

Another  method  of  execution  was  by  burning,  which 
was  inflicted  in  cases  of  adultery  with  a  mother-in-law 
or  wife's  daughter,  and  of  prostitution  of  a  priest's 
daughter.15  This  punishment  took  the  form  of  burning 
on  a  fire,  as  we  are  told  indeed  by  the  Talmudists,  who, 
however,  forget  this  information  advanced  by  them- 
selves in  order  later  to  maintain  that  the  prisoner  was 
compelled  to  drink  molten  lead,  so  that  his  body  might 
be  preserved.16 

A  more  simple  and  dispassionate  kind  of  death  was 
reserved  for  the  city  which  rendered  itself  guilty  of 
apostacy  in  following  polytheistic  or  idolatrous  creeds. 
All  the  inhabitants  were  to  be  put  to  the  edge  of  the 
sword  and  decapitated,  while  the  city  with  all  it  con- 
tained, being  given  over  to  the  flames,17  became  an  ever- 
lasting sepulchre  in  honour  of  Jehovah,  and  above  all 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        205 

for  His  appeasement.  For  the  fundamental  idea  which 
underlay  Mosaic  criminal  law,  and  even  more  recent 
schools,  was  the  necessity  for  appeasing  the  Divinity, 
directly  offended  by  any  crime  which  was  viewed  as  sin. 

It  would  appear  that  a  special  form  of  death  was 
reserved  by  the  law  for  those  guilty  of  certain  species 
of  incest :  "  they  shall  be  cut  off  in  the  sight  of  their 
people."  18  In  this  "  cutting  off  "  Talmudists  have  been 
anxious  to  discover  the  destruction  of  the  soul  (chareth), 
or  rather  death  by  heavenly  means,  which  is  much  the 
same  as  saying  an  internal  punishment  entrusted  to 
providence  and  carried  out  by  human  justice  with 
scourging  alone.  But  this  interpretation  is  entirely 
arbitrary,  firstly  because  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  an 
inward  heavenly  punishment  which  could  have  been 
carried  out  in  the  presence  of  the  assembled  people,  and 
secondly  because  the  legal  phrase,  when  intelligently 
explained  by  means  of  comparisons,  turns  out  to  signify 
the  extreme  penalty  expressed  in  its  generic  form,  and 
therefore  to  be  carried  out  by  means  of  hanging. 

The  extreme  punishments  were  therefore  four  in  num- 
ber: hanging,  stoning,  burning,  and  decapitation. 

Of  the  two  minor  penalties,  fine  and  flagellation, 
the  first  was  enacted  against  certain  fixed  crimes,  and 
the  second  was  reserved  for  non-capital  offences  not 
punishable  in  any  determined  manner.  In  Deuter- 
onomy, in  fact,  the  judges  are  instructed  as  follows: 
"  If  the  wicked  man  be  worthy  to  be  beaten,  the  judge 
shall  cause  him  to  lie  down,  and  to  be  beaten  before 
his  face,  according  to  his  fault,  by  a  certain  number. 
Forty  stripes  he  may  give  him,  and  not  exceed:  lest 
if  he  should  exceed,  and  beat  him  above  these  with 
many  stripes,  then  thy  brother  should  seem  vile  unto 
thee."  19  And  as  if  to  give  an  example  of  the  unspecified 
misdemeanours  punishable  after  this  sort,  the  legislator 


206        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

of  Deuteronomy  interpolates  between  these  penal  regu- 
lations and  another  connected  with  successions,  the 
prohibition  "  to  muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out 
the  corn  "  20  on  the  threshing-floor,  in  order  that  the 
animals  which  aid  man  in  his  labour  may  have  some 
share  in  the  fruits  of  the  common  toil.  The  Talmudists, 
persistent  in  their  constant  endeavour  to  mitigate  all 
regulations  as  to  punishment,  went  so  far  as  to  reduce 
the  maximum  number  of  strokes  to  thirty-nine,  and 
insisted  that  the  culprit  should  have  been  warned  of  his 
fault  before  his  transgression,  once  at  least,  instead  of 
twice,  as  was  required  in  capital  offences.21  But,  at 
the  same  time  as  they  mitigated  the  punishment  in 
itself,  they  extended  it  in  its  application  even  to  the 
king — an  exceedingly  just  notion,  but  all  the  more 
strange  for  its  being  irreconcilable  with  the  status  of 
Hebrew  monarchs,  who  reigned  by  divine  right. 

Fine  was  more  especially  inflicted  upon  those  guilty 
of  trifling  offences  against  the  person.  This  punishment 
was  not  regarded  or  measured  as  an  obol  to  offended 
Jehovah,  according  to  that  law  which  was  purely  of 
religious  origin  and  character,  in  the  way  that  our  fine 
has  been  regulated  with  regard  to  the  pagan  divinity, 
Justice,  but  was  an  indemnity  proportionate  to  the 
damage  caused.  It  is  written  in  Exodus :  "  And  if  men 
strive  together,  and  one  smite  another  with  a  stone,  or 
with  his  fist,  and  he  die  not  but  keepeth  his  bed,  if  he 
rise  again  and  walk  abroad  upon  his  staff,  then  shall  he 
that  smote  him  be  quit ;  only  he  shall  pay  for  the  loss  of 
his  time,  and  shall  cause  him  to  be  thoroughly  healed."  22 
I  cannot  say  whether  the  Talmudists  are  right  in  in- 
terpreting the  word  in  the  text  which  means  "  staff " 
in  the  sense  of  "  health  "  and  "  strength,"  but  they  are 
certainly  right  in  understanding  that  the  smiter  was 
quit  of  the  customary  penalty  of  death,  in  that  he  was 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        207 

condemned  to  make  good  the  damage.  Perhaps  they 
may  also  be  correct  in  supposing,  though  they  have 
not  proved  it  by  adducing  texts,  that  the  smiter  was 
held  in  custody  until  it  was  ascertained  that  the  blow 
would  not  result  in  loss  of  life.  This  would  tally 
entirely  with  the  institution  of  imprisonment  merely 
as  a  means  of  preventive  custody.  At  all  events  this 
enactment  is  noteworthy  in  that  it  directs  the  reparation 
of  damage  caused  in  cases  of  light  wounds  inflicted 
with  irregular  weapons.  It  is  linked,  across  countless 
centuries,  with  one  of  the  most  just  demands  of  the 
scientific  penal  school  in  the  matter  of  assault  and 
crimes  of  passion. 

To  these  penalties  were  joined  others  of  doubtful, 
or  at  least  rare,  application.  Such  were  those  com- 
prehended in  the  system  of  retaliation  (lex  talionis),  and 
especially  the  punishment  involving  the  cutting  off  of 
the  hand.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  retaliatory 
penalties,  based  upon  an  instinctive  sense  of  proportion, 
are  inscribed  in  Hebrew  law,  as  they  are  in  that  of  all 
other  ancient  peoples;  and  it  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand how  the  Talmudists,and  Diodati  and  Salvador  with 
them,  can  have  denied  this.23  "  Eye  for  eye,  tooth  for 
tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning, 
wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe,"  is  written  in 
Exodus.24  It  is  not  impossible  to  suppose,  as  customs 
grew  milder,  that  the  practice  shaped  itself  by  which, 
on  the  agreement  of  the  offended  person,  instead  of  the 
retaliatory  repetition  of  the  same  offence,  compensation 
was  made  by  means  of  a  fine  determined  upon  between 
the  parties,  and  confirmed  by  the  law-administering 
power,  as  was  the  case  among  the  Romans.  The  sup- 
position is  nevertheless  arbitrary,  firstly  because  it 
is  not  corroborated  .by  any  writing,  and  secondly 
because  where  the  law  contemplated  pecuniary  ret- 


208        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ribution,  it  did  so  openly,  as  in  the  case  of  assault 
and  battery.  I  am  rather  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
disposition  was  adopted  in  the  interests  of  both  the 
prosecutor  and  the  defendant,  in  the  sense  that  it 
sanctioned  a  perfect  proportion  between  violence  as  op- 
posed to  violence,  in  the  exercise,  more  or  less  reasonable 
and  immediate,  of  the  right  of  self-defence.  This  inter- 
pretation is  supported  by  the  principle  of  private 
vengeance  which  Mosaic  law  did  not  deny  to  the  offended 
party.  Indeed,  the  next  of  kin  to  a  man  slain  could 
put  the  slayer  to  death,  and  was  called  the  revenger  of 
blood.  It  is  written  in  Numbers :  "  But  if  he  thrust 
him  of  hatred,  or  hurl  at  him  by  laying  of  wait,  that  he 
die;  or  in  enmity,  smite  him  with  his  hand,  that  he  die; 
he  that  smote  him  shall  surely  be  put  to  death;  for  he 
is  a  murderer ;  the  revenger  of  blood  shall  slay  the  mur- 
derer when  he  meeteth  him.  But  if  he  thrust  him  sud- 
denly without  enmity,  or  have  cast  upon  him  anything 
without  laying  of  wait,  .  .  .  neither  sought  his  harm; 
then  the  congregation  shall  judge  between  the  slayer 
and  revenger  of  blood  according  to  these  judgments: 
and  the  congregation  shall  deliver  the  slayer  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  revenger  of  blood."  25  Now  it  is  obvious 
that  this  enactment  embodies  a  malignant  form  of  re- 
taliation, consisting  in  the  giving  of  death  for  death, 
but  it  is  also  clear  that  the  performance  of  this  retalia- 
tion was  entrusted  to  a  private  person,  and  that  the 
judge  only  intervenes  to  supersede  it  in  the  case  when  he 
is  solicited  to  bring  the  slayer  before  the  kinsman  of  the 
slain.  The  same  rule  must  have  had  force  in  the  retali- 
ation of  eye  for  eye,  and  tooth  for  tooth,  so  that  it  must 
have  been  the  aggrieved  party  and  not  the  judge  who 
had  to  exact  the  penalty,  except  when  there  was  judicial 
intervention  in  the  case  of  unjust  exercise  of  this  private 
right. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        209 

For  a  certain  particular  act  a  woman  was  condemned 
to  have  her  hand  cut  off.26 

All  these  punishments  encountered  an  obstacle  to 
their  being  carried  out,  in  the  existence  of  the  right  of 
sanctuary  conferred  upon  six  cities — three  to  the  east 
and  three  to  the  west  of  Jordan ; 27  but  not  in  the 
existence  of  pardon,  which  was  quite  incompatible  with 
the  notion  of  a  divine  law  which  no  man  could  neglect 
or  mitigate.  If  we  are  to  credit  the  Talmudists,  and 
Maimonides  in  particular,  the  kings,  while  they  were 
deprived  of  the  prerogative  of  mercy,  possessed  the 
power  of  supplementing  any  deficiency  in  the  law  with 
decrees  of  their  own.  They  could  send  a  culprit  to  his 
death  even  when  the  full  requirements  necessary  for 
his  judicial  condemnation  were  not  forthcoming.28  It 
was  important  to  make  this  particular  of  criminal  law 
quite  clear,  because  when  we  hear  the  clamorous  voices 
of  the  Jewish  mob  acclaiming  Barabbas,  proposed  to 
them  for  mercy,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  this 
merciful  prerogative  appertained  either  to  the  people  or 
to  the  ruling  power  of  Judaea,  when  it  appertained 
neither  to  the  one  nor  to  the  other. 

Among  the  crimes  visited  with  the  utmost  severity 
of  the  law,  those  hold  the  first  place  which  involved  the 
violation  of  religion.  The  false  prophet  who  rises 
amongst  the  people  and  maintains  that  he  has  seen 
dreams  and  visions,  and  foretells  some  sign  or  wonder, 
is  liable  in  his  life,  though  the  variety  of  his  death  is 
not  specified.29  Death  by  stoning  is  the  punishment 
awarded  to  the  blasphemer,  who  is  not  otherwise  men- 
tioned or  defined  by  the  law.  In  this  case  all  those  who 
have  heard  the  blasphemy  must  lay  their  hands  upon  the 
culprit  and  stone  him.30  The  selfsame  punishment  is 
decreed  against  whosoever,  without  holding  himself  up 
for  a  prophet,  endeavours  to  draw  others  away,  towards 


210        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

polytheistic  and  idolatrous  forms  of  worship.  In  this 
case  the  perverted  man  must  be  the  first  to  raise  his  hand, 
and  he  was  followed  by  the  whole  people,  the  perverter 
being  killed  beneath  the  hail  of  stones.31  An  enactment 
of  equal  severity  is  reserved  for  such  as,  without  leading 
away  others  from  monotheism,  profess  their  own  belief 
in  the  worship  of  foreign  gods — that  is,  of  gods  unknown 
to  their  fathers.  The  miserable  ascetic  was  led  without 
the  gates  of  the  city  and  was  forced  to  witness  the  build- 
ing of  his  own  tomb  of  stones.32  In  another  portion  of 
the  law,  amidst  numerous  cruel  examples  of  the  applica- 
tion of  this  punishment,  the  less  grievous  instance  is  given 
of  the  chastisement  of  those  who  worshipped  the  idol 
Moloch  by  sacrificing  their  own  children  to  him.33 
Lastly,  all  such  as  proclaim  themselves  possessed  of  the 
spirit  of  wizardry  are  punished  by  stoning,  as  being 
guilty  of  an  outrage  upon  monotheism ;  34  those  cultivat- 
ing the  art  of  divination,  necromancers,  magicians,  seers, 
and  sorcerers  are  visited  with  death,  but  in  what  shape 
is  not  indicated.35 

The  two  charges  brought  by  the  Sanhedrin  against 
Jesus  should  be  set  in  contrast  with  the  two  first  capital 
offences  here  set  down. 

The  first  is  from  Deuteronomy :  "  If  there  arise  among 
you  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  giveth  thee 
a  sign  or  a  wonder,  .  .  .  that  prophet,  or  that  dreamer  of 
dreams,  shall  be  put  to  death;  because  he  hath  spoken 
to  turn  you  away  from  the  Lord  your  God,  which 
brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  redeemed  you 
out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  36  Jesus,  who,  according 
to  the  first  charge  (which  was  false),  was  alleged  to 
have  foretold  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the 
miracle  of  its  building  up  again  in  three  days,  would 
have  come  into  collision  with  this  enactment,  which,  as 
it  neglects  to  assign  any  particular  variety  of  death, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         211 

entailed  hanging.  However,  the  false  charge  was  aban- 
doned, and  on  this  account  this  punishment  would  never 
have  been  applied. 

The  other  provision  is  from  Leviticus :  "  Bring  forth 
him  that  hath  cursed  without  the  camp;  and  let  all 
that  heard  him  lay  their  hands  upon  his  head,  and  let 
all  the  congregation  stone  him.  And  thou  shalt  speak 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  Whosoever  curseth 
his  God  shall  bear  his  sin.  And  he  that  blasphemeth 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  37 
Jesus,  if  condemned  in  consequence  of  the  charge  of 
blasphemy,  however  unjustly,  would  have  therefore  been 
stoned. 

But  was  He  stoned?  We  have  but  to  raise  our  eyes 
to  the  cross,  the  Christian  emblem,  in  order  to  make 
answer  that  the  suffering  which  He  was  destined  to 
undergo  was  very  different.  Search  as  we  may  among 
the  penalties  inflicted  by  Mosaic  law — penalties  which 
we  have  here  enumerated  to  this  end — we  shall  not  find 
among  them  the  cross,  which  was  a  punishment  peculiar 
to  the  law  and  custom  of  another  people,  as  we  shall 
proceed  to  show.  Meanwhile,  we  have  this  twofold 
truth:  that  the  Sanhedrin  inflicted  upon  Jesus  no  pun- 
ishment, and  that  which  He  later  underwent  was  not 
amongst  those  which  the  Sanhedrin  was  able  to  apply. 
This  is  enough  to  corroborate  the  fact  that  Hebrew 
judges  could  not,  and  did  not,  condemn  the  prisoner  from 
Nazareth. 


NOTES 

1  xxvi.  66. 

2  xxii.  71,  xxiii.  1.    This  is  the  textual  passage  between  the 
chapters  xxii.  and  xxiii.  of  S.  Luke:  in  this  passage,  which  cor- 
responds exactly  to  the  transfer  of  Jesus  from  the  Sanhedrin  to 


212        THE   TRIAD  OF   JESUS 

the  Praetorium,  it  is  said  in  plain  irrefutable  fashion,  "  Coeperunt 
autem  illud  accusare  "  (Vulgate).  This  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  the  whole  task  of  the  so-called  judges  of  the  Sanhedrin  was 
limited,  down  to  the  end,  to  bringing  accusations. 

3  xviii.  27,  28. 

4xiv.  64. 

5  1  Kings  xxii.  26,  27:  "  The  King  of  Israel  said,  Take  Micaiah, 
and  carry  him  back  unto  Amon  the  governor  of  the  city,  and  to 
Joash  the  king's  son;  And  say,  Thus  saith  the  king,  Put  this 
fellow  into  prison,  and  feed  him  with  bread  of  affliction  and  with 
water  of  affliction,  until  I  come  in  peace.*'    S.  Jerome  translates 
this  last  phrase  "  give  him  little  bread  and  little  water  "  (2  Paral. 
xviii.  26). 

6  xxxii.  2,  xxxvii.  4,  20.    The  prophet  Jeremiah  is  in  the  prison 
of  Jerusalem  where  Zedekiah,  King  of  Judah,  has  had  him  in- 
terred ;  but  even  this  confinement  is  only  inflicted  for  his  safe- 
keeping until  the  end  of  the  siege  which  the  King  of  Babylon 
has  laid  to  Jerusalem. 

7  Luke  xxii.  33.     In  fact,  the  disciple  did  not  only  speak  of 
prison,  but  said  in  career  em,  et  in  mortem  (Vulgate). 

8  There  is,  however,  mention  of  the  ergastulum,  but  merely  as 
a  place  in  which  the  slaves  were  guarded  by  night,  as  was  the 
practice  with  the  Romans.     Cf.  Jeremiah  xxxvii.  15. 

9  As  far  as  the  death  penalty  was  concerned,  the  Talmudists 
were  ardent  and  indefatigable  abolitionists.     The  most  learned 
man  of  Israel,  Rabbi  Akiba,  and  his  colleague  Rabbi  Triphon, 
said :  "  If  we  had  been  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  nobody  should 
have  been  condemned  to  death."    The  Mishna  lays  down  the 
following.     The  Sanhedrin  which  once  in  seven  years  condemns 
to  death  is  a  bloody  Sanhedrin.     Rabbi  Eliezer  says  even  once  in 
seventy-seven  years.     Cf.   Rabbinowicz,   Legislation    criminelle 
du  Talmud,  p.  172.     But  they  were  not  only  abolitionists,  but 
also  sentimentalists. 

10  xxi.  22,  23. 

11  The  penalties  of  burning,  breaking  on  the  wheel,  quartering, 
drawing  at  a  horse's  tail,  and  torture  with  pincers  were  punish- 
ments introduced  by  a  codex  which  bore  the  name  of  a  woman: 
Maria  Theresa  (Const,  crim.  Theres.  Art.  5,  par.  2).     Very  many 
other  laws  of  various  epochs,  wrongly  inspired  by  an  erroneous 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        213 

conception  of  punishment,  prescribed  tortures  of  the  most  ex- 
quisite description,  such  as  suffocation  in  mud,  drowning  with  a 
stone  about  the  neck,  the  prisoner  being  abandoned  in  a  boat 
which  leaked  (Const.  Grim.  Car.  par.  131 ;  cf .  Fertile,  Storia  del 
diritto  Italiano,  Un.  Tip.  ed.  1892,  par.  182,  p.  262),  disem- 
bowelling (Clodov.  cap.  T.  ;  cf.  Pauli,  Recept.  Sent.  v.  17,  2), 
poisoning  (Arch.  stor.  it.  ser.  xi.  i.  p.  67),  roasting  (Verci,  Trev. 
xvi.  129),  the  boiling  of  the  prisoner  in  water  or  in  oil  (Fertile, 
op.  cit.  p.  264),  impaling  Const,  crim.  car.  par.  192),  the  tearing 
off  of  the  flesh  piecemeal,  or  of  the  skin  in  strips,  or  the  tearing 
out  of  the  heart  (Stat.  Florent.  iii.  61 ;  Const,  crim.  Theres.  formu- 
laries, par.  6,  13),  the  casting  to  wild  beasts  (Dahn,  Die  Kdnige 
der  German,  i.  192),  the  walling  up  or  burying  alive  of  the  con- 
demned (Verci,  Trev.  ix.  107  ;  Campori,  Stat.  di  Modena,  p.  126), 
death  from  want  of  sleep,  from  dropping  water,  from  hunger, 
the  rolling  of  the  condemned  inside  a  box  studded  with  pointed 
nails  (cf.  Fertile,  op.  cit.  par.  182,  pp.  264,  265).  Galeazzo 
II  Visconti,  by  his  famous  Quaresima,  codified  the  art  of  pro- 
tracting the  victim's  sufferings  for  forty  days.  Examples  are 
not  wanting  in  history,  tallying  more  closely  with  the  case  under 
discussion — i.e.  of  superfluous,  because  posthumous  punish- 
ments. Thus,  after  the  prisoner  had  been  buried  alive,  the 
plough  was  passed  over  him  (Cibrario,  Econ.  i.  432),  or  the  bodies 
of  the  victims  were  torn  into  shreds  and  hung  from  the  city  gates 
(Stat.  di  Lucca,  1539,  iv.  71);  sometimes  they  were  cast  as  food 
to  the  dogs  and  wolves  (Verci,  Trev.  xiv.  203),  at  others  they 
were  left  unburied  for  ever  (L.  sal.  97,  2). 

12  Leviticus  xxi.  1,  4,  11. 

13  Deuteronomy  xxi.  1-9. 

14  Mishna,  49,  52.     Strangulation  was  spared  to  women  out  of 
regard  for  their  modesty,  as  if  that  sentiment  had  its  natural 
seat  hi  the  neck  (Sanhedrin,  456). 

15  Leviticus  xx.  14,  xxi.  9. 

16  Sanhedrin,  52a ;  cf.  Michaelis,  Mosdisches  Recht,  par.  235, 
and  Saalschutz,  Das  Mosaische  Recht,  pp.  457-60,  quoted  by 
Castelli,  op.  cit.  cap.  viii. 

17  Deuteronomy  xiii.  12-17. 

18  Leviticus  xx.  17. 

19  xxv.  2,  3. 


214        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

20  xxv.  4. 

21  Sifre,  ii.  par.  286 ;  Macchoth,  13,  156,  22a ;  Corin.  xi.  24. 

22  xxi.  18,  19. 

23  Mechtita,  Neziquin,  par.  8 ;  Baba  Zama,  836,  84a ;  Diodati 
in  the  commentary  to  Exodus  xxi.  24,  25  ;  Salvador,  Loi  de  Moise, 
Part  I.  liv.  iv.  chap.  ii.  par.  5. 

24  xxi.  24,25. 

25  xxxv.  20-25. 

26  Deuteronomy  xxv.  11,  12. 

27  Numbers  xxxv.  10  et  seq. ;  Exodus  xix.  1  el  seq. 

28  Maimonides,  De  Regibus,  iii.  10. 

29  Deuteronomy  xiii.  1,  5. 

30  Leviticus  xxiv.  14-16. 

31  Deuteronomy  xiii.  6-11. 

32  Deuteronomy  xvii.  2-5.     That  by  those  of  strangers  we  are 
to  understand  those  unknown  to  the  fathers,  is  to  be  gathered 
from  the  passage  "  diis  alienis  quos  ignoras  tu  et  patres  tui " 
(Vulgate),  xiii.  6. 

33  Leviticus  xx.  2. 

34  Leviticus  xx.  27.    The  text  (Vulgate)  says,  "  in  quibus  py- 
thonicus  vel  divinationis  fuerit  spiritus,"  from  the  title  Pythius 
given  to  Apollo  on  account  of  a  serpent  slain  by  him.     Cf.  Acts 
xvi.  16  ;  Deuteronomy  xviii.  11. 

35  Leviticus  xix.  31,  xx.  6 ;  Exodus  xxii.  18. 

36  xiii.  1,  5. 

37  xxiv.  14-16.     This  enactment  was  framed  to  meet  a  par- 
ticular act  which  is  recounted  in  the  same  passage.     A  nameless 
child  of  an  Egyptian  woman  and  of  an  Egyptian  man  had  blas- 
phemed the  name  of  Jehovah.     He  was  denounced  and  brought 
before  Moses,  who  consulted  the  Word  of  God,  which  affixed 
capital  punishment  to  such  a  crime  (Deuteronomy  xxiv.  10-16). 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Lucius  Pontius  Pilate — His  Spanish  Origin — At  the  Court  of 
Tiberius — How  his  Shameful  Marriage  caused  his  Nomina- 
tion as  Procurator  of  Judaea — His  wife  Claudia  joins  him 
in  his  Province — The  Tenacious  and  Vehement  Character 
of  Pilate  contrasted  with  that  Imagined  by  Tradition — His 
Violent  Treatment  and  Provocation  of  the  Jews — End  of  his 
Official  Career  caused  by  his  final  Deeds  of  Violence — An 
Allusion  of  Dante. 

ON  Friday  morning  He  was  brought  before  Pilate. 
Pilate  was  the  sixth  Roman  procurator  of  Judaea,  where 
no  prefect  was  resident:  he  consequently  performed  the 
duties  of  that  office.  He  came  from  Seville,  one  of  the 
four  cities  of  Bastic  Spain  which  enjoyed  the  right  of 
Roman  citizenship.  His  father,  Marcus  Pontius,  dis- 
tinguished himself  in  the  war  of  annihilation  waged  by 
Agrippa  against  the  Cantabrians,  and  he  commanded 
the  troop  of  renegades  who  turned  their  arms  against 
their  comrades  in  servitude,  the  Asturians.  When  Spain 
had  been  subjected  to  Rome,  Marcus  Pontius  obtained 
the  pilum  (javelin)  as  a  mark  of  distinction,  and  from 
it  the  family  took  the  name  of  Pilati.1  The  son,  Lucius 
Pontius,  joined  the  suite  of  Germanicus,  who  afterwards 
perished  in  Syria  by  the  orders  of  Tiberius,  and  with 
him  he  fought  through  the  German  campaigns.  After 
the  peace  he  came  to  Rome  in  the  pursuit  of  pleasure; 
and  this  pursuit  did  not  bring  him  fair  repute.  But 
his  royal  marriage  with  Claudia  earned  him  the  dignity 
of  procurator  of  Judaea. 

215 


216        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Claudia  was  the  youngest  daughter  of  Julia,  the 
daughter  of  Augustus,  who,  after  being  married  to 
Tiberius  as  her  third  husband,  was  sent  into  exile  by 
her  father  on  account  of  her  dissolute  life.  In  exile  she 
had  borne  Claudia  to  a  Roman  knight;  and  when  the 
girl  had  reached  about  thirteen,  her  mother  sent  her 
to  be  brought  up  by  her  husband. 

When  she  had  passed  her  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  year, 
the  Spaniard  Pontius  Pilate  arrived  in  Rome;  and 
having  cast  a  servile  rather  than  a  lustful  eye  on 
Claudia,  whose  upbringing  and  habits  he  well  knew, 
and  having  found  his  way  into  the  inner  favour  of 
Tiberius,  he  asked  her  in  marriage.  Tiberius  gave  his 
consent,  but,  says  the  story,  when  Claudia  issued  from 
the  temple  as  a  bride,  and  when  Lucius  Pontius  wanted 
to  follow  her  in  the  imperial  litter,  Tiberius,  who  was 
one  of  the  twelve  witnesses  required  by  the  nuptial  cere- 
mony, held  him  back,  and  drawing  a  paper  from  his 
bosom,  handed  it  to  him  and  passed  on.2 

It  was  the  order  to  proceed  to  Jerusalem  and  thence 
to  Caasarea,  as  procurator  of  Judaea.  A  war-bireme, 
riding  in  the  harbour,  was  already  prepared  to  set  sail 
with  him.  From  that  day  six  years  had  passed;  Julia 
was  dead.  Pontius  sent  numerous  despatches  describing 
the  Jewish  population  as  turbulent  and  rebellious  in  the 
highest  degree:  not  knowing  how  to  be  independent, 
they  could  not  resign  themselves  to  remaining  slaves. 
Claudia  asked  and  obtained  Caesar's  permission  to  join 
her  husband. 

This  was  a  most  gracious  concession,  because  in  the 
first  place  it  was  in  no  manner  allowed  that  the  pro- 
consuls should  take  their  wives  after  them;  later  they 
were  merely  recommended  not  to.  A  senatus  consult, 
published  under  the  consulship  of  Cethegus  and  Varro 
on  the  motion  of  Messalinus  Cotta,  and  which  is  tran- 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        217 

scribed  in  the  Justinian  text,  declared  that  it  was  better 
that  the  proconsul  should  go  to  his  province  without 
wife,  but  that  she  may  go  with  him,  wherefore  it  is 
recorded  that  the  senate  hath  ordained  that  the  pro- 
consuls be  personally  responsible  and  subject  to  penalty 
for  any  transgression  of  their  wives.3  The  rule  of 
prohibition,  or  rather  dissuasion,  would  have  had  no 
weight  with  Cassar,  had  he  not  had  his  own  particular 
reasons  (an  exception  in  the  case  of  Claudia,  daughter 
of  Julia  and  foster-daughter  of  Tiberius.  Nevertheless, 
this  was  the  lady  to  whom  refers  the  kindly  and  ever- 
lasting mention  in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  she  who  was  troubled  in  sleep  by  the  vision  of  the 
Innocent  that  was  in  her  husband's  hands. 

Lucius  Pontius  was  the  son  of  a  renegade  soldier;  he 
himself  was  a  renegade  husband.  He  inherited  the 
servility  of  his  father,  who  had  great  ambitions  at 
the  court  of  Rome.  He  was  personally  tainted  by  the 
most  shady  court  intrigues.  Conscious  as  he  was  of 
the  low  origin  of  his  rank,  he  set  about  to  keep  it  by 
the  most  strict  and  unremitting  observance  of  the  sole 
title  of  his  intrigue-won  fortunes — lavish .  subservience 
to  the  will  of  Rome.  Every  act  of  his  official  life  is 
inspired  by  the  necessary  programme  of  adaptation, 
and  not  by  the  spontaneous  leanings  of  his  own  nature. 
His  character,  it  is  true,  was  reft  of  every  moral  sense, 
if  we  may  judge  it  by  its  deeds,  and  was  prepared  for 
any  degree  of  base  dissimulation  if  it  advanced  his 
interests.  But  it  contained  nothing  of  that  feeble 
guardedness,  nothing  of  that  pusillanimous  hesitancy 
which  has  become  part  of  most  people's  opinion  of  him, 
and  which  in  the  apostolic  tradition  itself  is  called  by 
the  Greek  name  anandria  (avcu/8/oia).4  Philo  of  Alex- 
andria and  Flavius  Josephus  have  left  us  indications  of 
his  violent,  cruel,  and  tenacious  character,  capable  of 


218        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

boundless  hatred  as  well  as  of  base  intrigue.  Philo 
of  Alexandria,  in  a  disquisition  which  is  in  nowise  akin 
to  our  present  one,  calls  him  a  man  of  "  stubborn  and 
harsh  quality,"  and  assures  us  "  that  he  could  not  bring 
himself  to  do  anything  that  might  cause  pleasure  to  the 
Jews,"  and  that  "  within  the  holy  city  in  the  palace  of 
Herod  he  had  dedicated  insignia  of  gold  not  so  much 
in  honour  of  Tiberius  as  out  of  contempt  for  the 
Jews."  5 

Josephus  relates  precisely  the  same  story  about  the 
insignia  in  two  passages  of  his  works,  and  gives  details 
which  go  to  show  that  his  hatred  towards  the  Jews 
was  as  great  as  was  his  love  for  the  Romans.  Pilate, 
after  being  despatched  by  Tiberius  to  Judaea  as  pro- 
curator, had  the  effigies  of  Caesar,  which  go  by  the 
name  of  insignia,  brought  into  Jerusalem  under  cover 
of  night.  This  put  the  Jews  in  a  great  ferment.  Those 
in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  were  horrified  at  the 
spectacle.  They  considered  that  their  laws  were  being 
trampled  under  foot,  as  they  did  not  permit  the  erection, 
in  the  city,  of  even  a  statue. 

On  the  lamentation  of  the  citizens  a  mass  of  people 
flocked  in  from  the  country,  and,  hastening  with  one 
accord  before  Pilate,  who  was  then  at  Caesarea,  they 
entreated  him  to  remove  the  insignia  from  Jerusalem 
and  to  maintain  their  native  laws  intact.  On  Pilate 
showing  himself  hardened  against  their  supplications, 
they  flung  themselves  prostrate  before  him,  and  for 
five  days  and  as  many  nights  remained  motionless 
in  that  position.  The  following  day  Pilate,  having 
taken  his  seat  on  the  tribunal  in  the  great  circus,  and 
having  called  the  people  to  him  as  if  he  wished  to  make 
them  some  reply,  gave  a  signal  to  the  guards  to  fall 
on  them  with  cold  steel.  As  the  soldiers  closed  about 
them  in  three  lines,  the  Jews  remained  speechless  at 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         219 

the  unexpected  sight.  Pilate,  calling  out  to  them  that 
he  would  put  them  to  the  sword  unless  they  accepted 
the  effigies  of  Caesar,  gave  orders  to  his  men  to  un- 
sheathe their  swords.  Thereupon  the  Jews,  as  if  then 
alone  they  had  first  understood,  threw  themselves  upon 
the  ground,  and  baring  their  necks,  cried  that  they 
were  ready  to  die  rather  than  transgress  the  laws. 
Thunderstruck  at  their  unflinching  faith,  Pilate  com- 
manded the  removal  of  the  insignia  from  Jerusalem.6 

This  timely  and  wise  withdrawal  on  his  part  was 
perhaps  prompted  by  the  recency  of  his  nomination, 
as  it  is  certain  that  the  affair  of  the  insignia  took  place 
at  the  moment  of  his  entry  into  the  province  which  it 
was  his  duty  to  govern.  Later  he  was  unable  to  keep 
his  violence  against  the  Jews,  whom  he  detested,  in 
bounds.  At  the  expense  of  the  sacred  treasury — and 
this  fact  is  also  related  by  Josephus  in  two  passages — 
he  brought  to  Jerusalem  a  conduit  of  water  having  its 
source  two  hundred  stadia  distant.  The  Jews  had  no 
love  for  a  work  of  this  nature;  consequently,  having 
assembled  to  the  number  of  several  thousands,  they 
clamorously  intimated  to  him  that  he  should  desist; 
a  few,  as  is  the  case  in  a  mob,  gave  vent  to  insults. 
Whereupon  Pilate,  without  more  ado,  posted  a  great 
mass  of  soldiers  in  the  dress  of  ordinary  citizens  so  that 
they  might  the  easier  surround  the  discontented  Jews: 
each  soldier  carried  a  dagger  beneath  his  clothes.  The 
Jews  were  then  ordered  to  withdraw.  They  were  already 
beginning  to  shriek  imprecations  against  him  when  Pilate 
gave  the  preconcerted  sign  to  the  soldiers,  and  they  laid 
on  with  all  the  vehemence  they  could  muster,  striking 
down  alike  both  guilty  and  innocent.  Neither  did  the 
Jews  abate  in  their  insolence,  so  that  the  poor  wretches, 
taken  without  arms  by  men  well  equipped  to  destroy 
them,  were  left  dead  for  the  most  part  on  the  spot,  while 


220        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  others  escaped  by  flight,  but  wounded.  And  thus 
ended  the  tumult.7 

Later  on,  by  a  fresh  act  of  violence,  Pilate  was  to 
compromise  and  close  for  ever  his  official  career.  There 
broke  out  among  the  Samaritans  a  revolt,  stirred  up 
by  an  impostor,  who — no  new  feature  in  history — did 
everything  to  suit  the  caprice  of  the  mob.  He  wished 
to  gather  the  people  together  on  Mount  Gerizim,  which 
was  held  holy  by  the  Samaritans,  and  promised  that  he 
would  unearth  the  sacred  vessels  there  deposited  by  Moses. 
The  credulous  people  took  arms  and  gathered  in  force 
in  order  to  scale  the  mountain.  But  Pilate  was  before- 
hand with  them  and  had  the  road  to  the  mountain  held 
by  men  on  horse  and  foot.  These  forces  scared  off  a 
great  number,  and  put  the  rest  to  flight,  with  the  cap- 
ture of  many  prisoners.  Pilate  had  the  most  notable 
among  these  put  to  death.  The  Samaritans  went  to 
complain  to  Vitellius  of  the  destruction  wrought  among 
their  comrades,  and  put  forward  that  they  had  no  inten- 
tion of  revolting  from  the  Romans.  The  Governor  of 
Syria  sent  his  friend  Marcellus  as  vice-governor  to  Judaea 
and  ordered  Pilate  to  leave  for  Rome  in  order  to  render 
account  to  the  Emperor  of  the  charges  brought  against 
him  by  the  Jews.  Pilate,  after  ruling  Judaea  for  ten 
years,  bowed  his  head  to  the  behests  of  Vitellius,  and, 
having  no  excuse  to  offer,  set  out  in  the  direction  of 
Rome.  But  before  he  arrived  there  Tiberius  had  passed 
away.8 

To  the  Spaniard  who  had  come  to  Jerusalem  by  way  of 
Rome,  and  who  was  also  of  courtly  origin,  there  could 
have  been  nothing  pleasing  in  the  parched,  arid,  and 
colourless  nature  of  Palestine,  much  less  in  the  humble, 
mystic,  out-at-elbows  existence  of  its  people.  Their 
superstition,  which  would  have  nothing  of  Roman  idol- 
atry, which  was  their  sole  belief,  their  all,  appeared  to 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        221 

him  a  reasonable  explanation,  and  a  legitimate  one,  of 
their  disdain  and  opposition.  He  therefore  detested  the 
Jews,  and  his  detestation  was  fully  reciprocated.  An 
innovator  of  blameless  life,  one  that  chastised  His  fellow- 
countrymen  fearlessly  and  successfully,  one  who,  in  abso- 
lute contradistinction  to  all  contemporary  agitators,  did 
not  found  His  efforts  at  innovation  on  earth  amid  the 
political  relations  between  Jerusalem  and  Rome,  one  who 
with  calm  and  ready  indifference  left  to  Caesar  that  to 
which  Caesar  laid  claim — such  a  one  should  have  touched 
in  Pilate  a  deep  spring  of  kindly  fellow-feeling.  But  to 
Pilate,  cold  reasoner  as  he  was,  the  work  of  Jesus  was 
far  too  lofty,  far  too  immense,  for  him  to  feel  himself 
impressed  by  it.  But  was  not  Jesus  hated  by  the  major- 
ity of  his  fellow-countrymen?  That  in  itself  was  suffi- 
cient reason  that  Pilate  should  sympathise  with  Him, 
nay,  love  Him.  For  Pilate,  without  vent  for  the  craving 
of  his  violent  character,  demoralised  by  the  necessities  of 
a  position  which  he  had  won  by  illicit  means  and  filled 
with  difficulty,  found  the  reaction  and  the  outlet  which  his 
over-taxed  patience  required  in  using  every  opportunity 
for  showing  his  contempt  for  the  Jews  or  exercising  his 
tyranny  over  them ;  it  was  with  him  as  with  those  beasts 
of  burthen  which,  though  powerless,  sometimes  become 
vicious. 

But  as  so  often  happens  with  those  same  animals,  in 
shaking  off  the  load  of  man,  which  wearies  and  dis- 
tresses them,  they  fall  into  the  abyss  they  have  so 
often  skirted  but  escaped;  so  Pilate  owed  his  ruin  to 
this  final  outburst  of  ill-restrained  passion  against  the 
Samaritans. 

In  36  A.D.,  two  years  after  Lucius  Vitellius,  father  of 
the  future  Roman  Emperor  Aulus  Vitellius,  had  suc- 
ceeded Pomponius  Flaccus  as  Governor  of  Syria,  the 
procurator  Pilate  received  instructions  from  the  new; 


222        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Governor  to  repair  to  Rome  in  order  to  prove  before  the 
Emperor  his  innocence  of  dealing  tyrannically  with  the 
Samaritans.9  According  to  some,  he  was  driven  from 
Rome  into  exile  at  Vena  Gallica,  where  his  restless  life 
was  cut  short.10 

It  is  certain  that  for  the  part  he  played  in  suppressing 
the  Nazarene  he  cannot  have  undergone  any  punishment, 
seeing  that  he  remained  in  office  several  years  after. 
And  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  news  of  the  bloody 
event  must  have  found  its  way  to  the  Court  of  Rome — 
in  fact,  two  letters  in  Greek  to  Tiberius  and  a  longer 
report  to  the  Emperor  are  ascribed  to  Pilate. 

These  documents,  currently  known  under  the  name  of 
the  Acts  of  Pilate,  undoubtedly  belong  to  the  series  of 
apocryphal  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  but  they  are 
not  devoid  of  a  certain  interest,  because  the  existence  of 
such  acts  is  evidenced  by  the  oldest  Fathers  of  the 
Church.11 

Such  was  the  man  whose  cowardice,  made  manifest  in 
the  most  supreme  and  memorable  act  of  injustice  the 
world  has  ever  known,  was  destined  to  earn  him  eternal 
infamy.  To  him  and  to  no  others  pointed  the  poet  as 

colui 
Che  f ece  per  viltate  il  gran  rifiuto ; 

to  him,  the  prototype  of  that  long  train  of  those  who 
were  never  quite  alive,  who  vainly  sought  glory  in  this 
world,  vainly  dreaded  infamy;  who,  ever  wavering 
betwixt  good  and  evil,  washed  their  hands ;  who,  like  the 
neutral  angels  of  the  threshold,  were  neither  faithful  nor 
rebellious ;  who  are  equally  despised  by  pity  and  justice; 
who  render  themselves 

A  Dio  spiacenti  ed  ai  nemici  sui.12 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         223 

And  what  man  other  than  Pilate  was  ever  placed  so 
typically,  in  such  accordance  with  the  idea  of  the  poet, 
between  the  Son  of  God  and  His  enemies,  between  justice 
and  mercy,  between  right  and  wrong,  between  the  Em- 
peror and  the  Jews,  and  has  refused  either  issue  of  the 
dilemma  ? 

Was  it  Celestine,  Diocletian,  or  Esau?  But  they  of 
two  things  chose  the  one;  and  who  knows  but  what  they 
chose  the  better?  A  hermitage  and  a  mess  of  pottage 
may  under  many  aspects  be  better  worth  than  the  papacy 
renounced  by  Celestine,  than  the  empire  abdicated  by 
Diocletian,  or  than  the  birthright  bartered  by  Esau. 
But  Pilate  refused  to  choose,  and  his  refusal  was  great — * 
great  enough  to  justify  the  antonomasia  of  Dante — and 
it  was  cowardly.  He  refused  not  only  the  great  gift  of 
free  will,  in  a  case  when  a  free  choice  was  his  absolute 
duty.  When  admitted,  like  the  fallen  angels,  to  the 
great  choice  between  good  and  evil,  he  did  not  cleave  for 
ever  to  the  good,  as  did  S.  Michael,  or  to  the  evil,  as  did 
Lucifer,  but  he  refused  a  power  which  for  him  was  the 
fount  of  duty  and  which  cost  the  life  of  a  man  and  the 
right  of  an  innocent.  According  to  what  has  been 
already  shown  in  these  pages,  as  to  the  true  office  of 
Pilate,  he  did  not  merely  refuse  to  veto  an  injustice,  by 
not  making  himself,  since  he  was  able,  the  executor 
thereof,  but  he  refused  the  act  of  justice  itself,  as  he 
ought  to  have  made  himself  the  judge,  although  he  was 
not.  His  refusal  was  then  great — greater  than  the  com- 
mentators ignorant  of  this  historical  detail  can  imagine, 
since  they  continue  to  seek,  amidst  the  things  and  per- 
sons present  to  the  hatred  and  love  of  Dante,  him  who 
made  the  "  great  refusal,"  as  if  the  poet  had  not  been  a 
soul  more  sublime  than  passionate,  and  they  think  of 
Giano  della  Bella  or  even  Vien^di  Cerchi.  And  even  as 
the  refusal  of  Pilate  was  great,  the  greatest  of  all  re- 


224        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

fusals,  so  it  was  cowardly.  He  was  convinced  of  the 
innocence  of  Jesus ;  he  calls  him  righteous ;  asks  and  asks 
again  of  his  accusers,  "  What  evil  hath  he  done  to  you  ?  " 
he  knows  that  it  is  out  of  envy  that  they  set  Him  in  his 
hands ;  he  thinks  and  says,  "  I  find  no  fault  in  Him  " ; 
he  feels  that  it  is  right  and  reasonable  to  set  Him  free, 
and  yet  he  sends  Him  to  the  cross.  Cowardice  of 
cowardice !  And  it  was  displeasing,  as  it  was  bound  to 
be,  both  to  the  followers  of  Jesus  and  his  enemies,  both 
to  Caesar  and  the  Jews. 
Before  such  a  man  Jesus  was  brought  bound.13 

NOTES 

1  For  the  derivations  of  pilum,  cf.  Virgil,  lEn.  xii.  121;  Martial, 
Epigr.  1,  xxxii.;  Orelli  and  Henzen,  Inscr.  lot.  3574,  6852.     For 
the  political  condition  of  Hispalis  (Seville),  which  obtained  from 
Caesar  the  name  Colonia  Julia  Romola  or  Romulensium,  cf. 
Caesar,  Bell.  Civ.  2,  18,  20  ;  Bell.  Hisp.  27,  35,  42  ;  Strabo,  3, 141. 
Hispalis  was  also  the  seat  of  a  Conventus  Juridicus. 

2  Cf.  Petruccelli  Delia  Gattina,  Memorie  di  Giuda,  vol.  i.  cap.  ii. 

3  L.  4,  par.  2,  D.  De  off.  Procons.  et  Leg.  1,  16.     Similar  pro- 
visions, which  we  meet  with  in  the  same  authority,  ordained  that 
the  proconsul  (and  the  procurator  was  subject  to  the  same  regu- 
lations) should  enter  his  province  by  the  usual  route,  and  should 
not  neglect  to  first  set  his  foot  in  the  accustomed  city,  as  the  pro- 
vincials assigned   great  importance  to  the  usages  and  preroga- 
tives.    Thus  the  proconsul  of  Asia  was  to  arrive  by  sea  and  land 
first  at  Ephesus.     If  he  arrived  in  a  populous  city  or  chief-town, 
he  was  to  submit  to  the  inhabitants  rendering  him  honours  and  to 
hearken  with  benignity  to  their  compliments  (1.  4,  pars.  4  and  5  ; 
i.7). 

4  For  the  general  opinion,  see  Didon,  Jesus-Christ,  ch.  x. 

5  Leg.  ad  Caj.  ed  Hoesch,  p.  1034.     Philo  calls  him  pervicad 
duroque  ingenio  and  attributes  to  him  venditas  sententias,  rapinas, 
clades,  tormenta,  crebras  cosdes  indemnatorwn,  crudelitatem  scevis- 
siwiam, 


THE    TRIAL,   OF   JESUS'        225 

6  De  bello  jud.  lib.  ii.  cap.  ix.    The  same  story  is  repeated  in 
practically  identical  terms  in  the  Antiq.  jud.  xvm.  iv.  1. 

7  Josephus,  Antiq.  xvm.  iv.  2.     It  is  given  to  be  understood 
that  the  opposition  was  directed  against  the  employment  of  the 
sacred  treasure,  called  by  the  Hebrew  word  "  corbona."    Cf.  De 
bello  jud.  ii.  ix. 

8  Josephus,  Antiq.  xvm.  v.  2. 

9  Cassiodorus,   Chronic,  ad.  ann.  Chr.  34 ;  Orosius,  Hist.  lib. 
vii.  cap.  vi.     See  in  this  chapter  the  account  of  his  violence  to  the 
Samaritans.     For  the  coming  of  Lucius  Vitellius,  see  cap.  x.     Cf. 
Mommsen,  Roman  Provinces  from  Caesar  to  Diocletian,  chap.  xi. 

10  Cassiodorus  and  Orosius,  loc.  cit.;  Eusebius,  Hist,  cedes,  ii. 
7.     Eusebius  refers  to  the  suicide  as  "  providential,"  and  is  there- 
fore open  to  suspicion  ;  he  remarks  that  "  it  was  impossible  that 
a  minister  of  such  impiety  should  remain  unpunished." 

11  Fabricius  J.  A.     Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti  (Ham- 
burg, 1719-1743),  vol.  i.  pp.  237,  239,  298,  vol.  ii.  p.  456  ;  Tertul- 
lian,  ApoL  5 ;  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  pp.  76,  84  ;  Chrysostom, 
Homil.  viii.  in  Pasch  ;  Altman,  De  epist.  PUati  ad  Tiberium ;  Van 
Dale,  De  orat.  p.  609 ;  Winer,  Biblisches  Realworterbuch,  art. 
Pilatus.    Epistola  i. :  "  Pontius  Pilatus  Clauido  salutem.     Nuper 
accidit  et  quod  ipse  probavi  Judseos  per  invidiam  se  suosque  pos- 
teros  crudeli  condemnatione  punisse.     Denique  cum  promissum 
haberent  Patres  eorum  quod  illis  Deus  eorum  mitteret  de  ccelo 
sanctum  suum  qui  eorum  Rex  merito  diceretur,  et  hunc  se  promi- 
serit  per  virginem  missurum  ad  terras:   istum  itaque  me  Prseside 
in  Judseam  Deus  Hebrseorum  cum  misisset,  et  vidissent  eum  cce- 
cos  illuminasse,  leprosos  mundasse,  paralyticos  curasse,  dsemones 
ab  hominibus  fugasse,  mortuos  etiam  suscitasse,  imperasse  ventis, 
ambulasse  siccis  pedibus  super  undas  maris,  et  multa  alia  fecisse, 
cum  omnis  populus  Judseorum  eum  filium  Dei  esse  diceret,  invid- 
iam contra  eum  passi  sunt  Principes  Judseorum,  et  tenuerunt 
eum  mihique  tradiderunt,  et  alia  pro  aliis  mini  de  eo  mentientes 
dixerunt,  asserentes  istum  Magum  esse  et  contra  legem  eorum 
agere.     Ego  autem  credidi  ita  esse,  et  flagellatum  tradidi  ilium 
arbitrio  eorum.     Illi  autem  crucifixerunt  eum  et  sepulto  custodes 
adhibuerunt.     Ille  autem  militibus  meis  custodientibus  die  tertio 
resurrexit:  in  tantum  autem  exarsit  nequitia  Judseorum,  ut  darent 
pecuniam  custodibus  et  dicerent :  Dicite,  quia  discipuli  ejus  cor- 


226         THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

pus  ipsius  rapuerunt.  Sed  cum  accepissent  pecuniam,  quod  fac- 
tum  fuerat  tacere  non  potuerunt.  Nam  et  ilium  surrexisse  tes- 
tati  sunt  se  vidisse,  et  se  a  Judseis  pecuniam  accepisse.  Haec  ideo 
ingessi,  ne  quis  aliter  mentiatur,  et  sestimet  credendum  menda- 
ciis  Judseorum."  Epistola  ii. :  "  Pilatus  Tiberio  Csesari  salutem. 
De  Jesu  Christo  quern  tibi  plane  postrejnis  meis  declaraveram, 
nutu  tandem  populi,  acerbum,  me  quasi  invito  et  subticente,  sup- 
plicium  sumptum  est.  Virum  hercle  ita  pium  ac  sincerum  nulla 
unquam  setas  habuit,  nee  habitura  est.  Sed  mirus  extitit  ipsius 
populi  conatus  omniumque  scribarum  et  seniorum  consensus, 
suis  Prophetis  et  more  nostro  Sybillis  prsemonentibus,  hunc  veri- 
tatis  legatum  crucifixere,  signis  etiam  super  naturam  apparenti- 
bus,  dum  penderet,  et  orbi  universe  Philosophorum  judicio  lapsum 
minantibus.  Vigent  illius  discipuli,  opere  et  vitee  continentia 
Magistrum  non  mentientes,  imo  in  eius  nomine  beneficentissimi. 
Nisi  ego  seditionem  populi  prope  aestuantem  pertimuissem,  for- 
tasse  adhuc  nobis  ille  Vir  viveret.  Etsi  tuse  magis  dignitatis  fide 
compulsus  quam  voluntate  mea  adductus  pro  viribus  non  resti- 
terim  sanguinem  justum  totius  accusationis  immunem,  verum 
hominum  malignitate  inique  in  eorum  famen  (?),  ut  Scripturse 
interpretantur,  exitium  pati  et  venundari.  Vale.  Quarto  Nonas 
Aprilis  "  (from  Fabricius,  op.  tit.  vol.  i.  pp.  298-301).  "  Pon- 
tentissimo,  Augustissimo  et  invicto  Imperatori  Tiberio  Pilatus 
Prsefectus  orientis.  Cogor  hisce  literis  tibi,  Pontentissime  Imper- 
ator,  significare  metu  licet  plenus  ac  terrore,  quid  nuperi  temporis 
impetus  tulerit,  et  jam  colligo  inde  quid  dienceps  postea  sit  fu- 
turum.  In  hujus  cui  praesideo  provincise  urbe  Hierosolymis  uni- 
versa  multitude  Judseorum  mini  tradidit  hominem  cui  nomen 
Jesu,  et  multorum  eum  reum  egit  criminum,  sed  quse  firmis  ar- 
gumentis  probare  non  potuerunt.  In  hoc  tamen  conspirarunt 
omnes,  quod  Jesus  sabbato  feriandum  non  esse  docuisset.  Nam 
multos  sanavit  ilia  die,  ccecis  visum  restituit,  claudis  incedendi 
facultatem ;  mortuos  suscitavit,  mundavit  leprosos,  curavit  par- 
alyticos,  qui  plane  debiles  essent,  neque  vires  ullas  corporis  aut 
nervorum  firmitatem  haberent:  his  omnibus  non  modo  vocis  usum 
et  armonise  precipiendse,  et  facultatem  ambulandi  et  currendi 
reddidit  solo  verbo  prsecipiens  infirmis,  sed  et  aliud  quid  majus 
effecit  quod  Dii  nostri  prsestare  non  possunt.  Quatriduanum 
mortuun  solo  verbo  et  compellato  tantum  ejus  nomine  suscitavit, 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         227 

illumque  cujus  sanies  jam  a  vennibus  comimpebatur,  et  qui  canis 
instar  foetebat,  videns  in  sepulchre  positum  jussit  currere,  nulla- 
tenus  amplius  similem  mortuo  sed  ex  sepulchre  velut  ex  thalamo 
sponsi  prodeuntem  suaveolentissimum.  Prseterea  mente  alien- 
ates et  agitates  a  dsemoniis,  inque  desertis  degentes  bestiarum 
instar  ferarum  et  cum  serpentibus  enutritos,  iterum  mites  placi- 
dosque  reddidit,  soloque  verbo  ut  urbes  rursus  incolerent  et  ad  se 
redirent  effecit,  adesse  jussis  hominibus  mente  et  viribus  integris 
ac  nobilibus  qui  cum  illis  comederent,  et  hostes  jam  illos  ac  debel- 
latores  perniciosorum  a  quibus  vexati  fuerant  daemonum  viderent. 
Fuit  et  arida  homo  manu,  sive  potius  dimidia  corporis  parte  veluti 
in  saxum  mutata,  qui  prse  macilentia  vix  hominis  formam  referret. 
Hunc  quoque  solo  verbo  curavit  et  sanitati  restituit.  Turn  mulier 
sanguinis  profluvio  laborans  exaustis  sanguinis  fluxu  arteriis 
venisque  vix  heerebat  ossibus  mortuse  simillima  et  destituta  voce, 
cui  medici  illius  loci  mederi  neutiquam  poterant.  Hsec  clam, 
cum  prsetereunte  forte  Jesus  ab  ejus  umbra  vires  cepisset,  a  tergo 
vestis  eius  fimbriam  tetigit,  eademque  hora  repleta  sanguinis  et  a 
malo  suo  liberata  fuit,  quo  facto,  festinato  gressu  in  civitatem 
suam  Capernaum  accurrit,  et  sex  dierum  iter  absolvere  potuit. 
Atque  ista  majora  a  Jesu  quam  a  Diis  quos  nosmet  colimus  facta 
miracula  exposui,  prout  statim  memoria  cogitanti  suggessit.  Hunc 
Herodes,  Archelaus,  Philippus,  Annas  et  Caiphas  una  cum  toto 
populo  mihi  tradidere,  magno  super  ejus  inquisitione  facto  ad- 
versus  me  tumulto.  Jussi  igitur  prius  flagellatum  in  crucem 
agere,  licet  nullam  causam  in  eo  maleficiorum  criminumque  reperi. 
Simul  autem  crucifixus  est,  simul  tenebrse  universam  terram  op- 
plevere,  sole  per  meridiem  obscurato  et  astris  comparentibus, 
dum  interim  inter  stellas  desideraretur  nee  splenderet  luna  san- 
guine veluti  suffusa  atque  deficiens  :  tune  ornatus  omnis  rerum 
terrestrium  sepultus  erat,  ita  ut  prse  tenebrarum  densitate  nee 
ipsum  a  Judseis  posset  conspici  quod  ita  vocant  sanctuarium : 
terras  vero  dehiscentis  chaos  et  dejectorum  fulminum  strepitus 
percipiebatur.  Inter  hunc  ipsum  terrorem  e  mortuis  suscitati 
videndos  se  praebuere,  ut  ipsi  Judsei  testes  affirmarunt,  in  his 
Abraamus,  Isaacus,  Jacobus,  duodecim  Patriarchae,  Moyses  et 
Joannes,  quorum  pars  ante  ter  mille  et  quingentos  ut  ajunt  illi 
annos  diem  obierunt.  Et  plurimi  quos  in  vita  etiamnum  nover- 
ant,  jam  vero  plangentes  bellum  quod  instet  propter  ipsorum  im- 


228      THE  TRIAL;  or  JESUS 

pietatem,  Judseoramque  et  legis  ipsorum  eversionem  quiritantes. 
Tremor  ex  terrse  motu  duravit  a  sexta  hora  diei  parasceves  usque 
ad  nonam.  At  die  prima  sabbatorum  facto  mane  sonus  de  ccelo 
auditus  est,  coelumque  lumine  perfusum  septuple  tanto  quamtum 
aliis  solet  diebus.  Die  tertia  noctis  sol  visus  est  incomparabili 
splendore  prolucens,  et  quemadmodum  fulgura  in  tempestate 
subito  promicant,  sic  viri  lucida  veste  et  gloria  magna  induti  ap- 
paruerunt  cum  innumerabili  multitudine  clamantium,  et  voce 
magni  tonitrui  instar  proloquente :  Christus  crucifixus  resur- 
rexit.  Et  qui  sub  terra  apud  inferos  servitutem  servierant,  pro- 
dierunt  in  vitam,  hiatu  terrse  tanto  ac  si  fundamenta  nulla  essent, 
ita  ut  aquae  ipsse  subter  abyssum  apparerent,  dum  mortuis  pluri- 
mis  resuscitatis  obviam  veniebant  ccelestes  spiritus  corpore  prae- 
diti.  Qui  vero  suscitaverat  mortuos  omnes,  et  inferna  vinculis 
constrinxerat  Jesus,  Dicite  discipulis,  inquit,  quod  antecedet  vos 
in  Galilseam,  ibi  eum  visuri  estis.  Per  totam  porro  noctem  lumen 
istud  lucere  neutiquam  desiit.  At  Judseorum  non  pauci  voragine 
terrse  absorpti  sunt,  ut  altera  die  desiderarentur  multi  Judsei  ex  iis 
qui  in  Christum  dixerant.  Aliis  qualia  non  quisquam  nostrum 
vidit  Phasmata  sese  conspicienda  obtulerunt.  Neque  una  Judse- 
orum substitit  Hierosolymis  Synagoga,  siquidem  eversae  sunt 
omnes.  Cseterum  qui  sepulchrum  Jesu  custodiebant  milites  a  con- 
spectu  Angeli  conterriti,  metuque  ac  terrore  maximo  extra  se  pos- 
iti  abierunt.  Hsec  sunt  quse  prsesenti  tempore  gesta  comperi  et 
ad  Potestatem  tuam  referens,  qusecumque  cum  Jesu  Judaei  eger- 
unt,  Numini  tuo,  Domine,  misi  "  (from  the  same  work:  vol.  ii  p. 
457  et  seq.).  Let  us  leave  aside  curiosity;  the  forgery  could  not 
well  be  more  frivolous  or  evident. 

12  Inferno,  iii. ;  cf .  Pascoli,  Colui  chi  fece  U  gran  rifiuto,  in  M ar- 
zocciy  ann.  vii.  no.  27.  Pascoli  identifies  Pilate  in  the  allusion 
of  Dante,  not  only  by  the  arguments  here  given,  but  also  by 
others  of  a  theological  description.  "  Pilate  was  the  instrument 
of  that  Redemption  by  which  the  gift  (of  free  will)  was  con- 
ferred again  ;  Pilate,  who  from  the  Redeemer  might  have  known 
quid  est  veritas  and  waited  not  for  an  answer ;  Pilate,  who  recog- 
nized in  Jesus  one  that  was  just,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Christ,  and 
let  Him  be  crucified ;  Pilate  ...  oh,  thought  of  Dante 
dizzily  sublime,  that  there  in  the  entry  to  the  world  of  Death  he 
should  see  running,  running,  ever  running  behind  the  cross, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         229 

him  who  raised  it.  Who  can  be  the  prototype  of  those  in  vain 
baptised  in  the  Cross  of  Christ,  if  it  is  not  he  who  more  than  any 
other,  half-way  betwixt  heathendom  and  Christendom,  he  that 
was  a  pagan  but  knew  Christ,  he  that  was  a  Christian  but  let 
Him  be  crucified  ?  " 

13  Strauss  (Vie,  par.  131),  not  for  a  moment  interrupting  his 
comparative  exegesis  of  the  Gospel  texts,  notes  that,  according 
to  S.  Matthew,  Jesus  was  bound  when  he  was  brought  to  the  Prae- 
torium,  while  according  to  S.  John  He  was  bound  immediately 
after  His  arrest.  But  as  a  fact,  S.  Matthew  does  not  say  that 
Jesus  was  bound  then;  he  says  "  bound,"  which  is  equivalent  to 
"  having  been  bound  " :  "  they  led  Him  away  and  delivered  Him 
up  to  Pilate  the  governor  "  (et  vinctum  adduxerunt  eum,  xxvii.  2. 
Vulgate).  When  and  where  he  was  bound  is  not  mentioned, 
Besides,  as  to  the  arrest,  he  does  not  speak  very  differently  from 
S.  John:  "  Then  they  came  and  laid  hands  on  Jesus,  and  took 
Him  "  (xxvi.  50).  Thus,  if  S.  John  tells  us  that  the  prisoner 
was  bound  from  the  first,  while  S.  Matthew  describes  Him  as 
still  bound  at  the  time  of  being  brought  to  the  Prsetorium,  this 
constitutes  no  contradiction  but  rather  a  confirmation,  indicating 
the  continuation  of  the  same  circumstance.  Moreover,  nothing 
could  be  more  probable  or  more  consistent  with  the  practice  of 
criminal  procedure,  than  that  Jesus  should  have  been  twice 
bound,  once  at  the  time  of  arrest,  and  again  when  He  went  forth, 
after  having  been  unbound  during  His  stay  in  the  Sanhedrin. 
The  dignity  of  apparent  freedom  has  often  been  remarked  in 
the  prisoner.  See  Art.  273  of  the  Codex  of  Italian  Criminal 
Procedure. 


CHAPTER   XVII 

In  which  it  is  shown  that  the  Reputed  Judges  of  Jesus  acted 
as  Prosecutors  before  Pilate — Scruples  of  Levitic  Contam- 
ination close  the  Gate  of  the  Prsetorium  to  them — Better 
Determination  of  the  Day  upon  which  these  Occurrences 
took  place — Pilate's  Tribune — How  an  Accusation  but  not 
a  Condemnation  upon  the  Part  of  the  Jews  is  spoken  of — 
How  the  Charge  of  Blasphemy  was  not  Maintained,  but 
the  Already  Abandoned  Charge  of  Sedition  was  once  more 
pressed — The  Examination  of  Jesus  before  Pilate — How 
Pilate  concluded  that  he  found  no  Crime  hi  Him. 

THOSE  that  went  with  Him  were  His  judges.1  In  like 
manner  the  humbler  and  more  greedy  of  gain  among  the 
craftsmen  are  they  that  bring  their  work  for  payment 
as  soon  as  it  is  done.  At  the  gate  of  the  Praetorium  they 
were  compelled  to  halt,  for  within  the  walls  of  the  Roman 
procurator's  palace  they  would  have  been  polluted  by 
Levitic  contamination.  They  who  thrice,  yea  four 
times,  in  a  single  night  had  violated  the  laws  in  their 
loftiest  and  sternest  essence  scrupled  to  break  a  mere 
ritual  regulation. 

This  regulation  consisted  in  the  prohibition  to  eat  fer- 
mented food  on  the  first  and  on  the  seventh  day  of  the 
feast  of  the  Passover — a  prohibition  which  perhaps  de- 
rived its  origin  from  the  recollection  that  the  Hebrews 
when  driven  out  of  Egypt,  had  no  time  to  ferment  their 
dough,  and  therefore  consumed  it  before  it  had  been 
leavened.2  This  pious  scruple  on  the  part  of  those  per- 
fervid  zealots  that  accompanied  Jesus,  and  which  is  at- 

230 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        231 

tested  by  the  fourth  Evangelist,3  leads  us  to  confirm  the 
opinion  that  the  trial  and  execution  of  Jesus  took  place 
on  the  day  preceding  the  Passover,  on  the  day  of  prep- 
aration (TrapaoTcevi}),  instead  of  upon  the  Passover 
itself,  as  the  Synoptics  would  induce  one  to  maintain. 
The  question  as  to  the  death  of  Jesus  is  a  difficult  one, 
but  one  of  no  great  importance  in  the  present  matter. 
It  is  certain  that  S.  Matthew,  S.  Mark,  and  S.  Luke, 
from  what  they  say  in  reference  to  the  Last  Supper,  and 
not  from  their  allusions  to  the  actual  day  of  death,  make 
that  day  coincide  with  the  Passover.4  S.  John,  on  the 
contrary,  makes  clear  reference  to  the  preceding  day, 
not  only  in  calling  attention  to  the  scruple  of  the  Jews 
against  entering  the  Praetorium,  but  also  by  an  explicit 
affirmation — "  It  was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover."  5 
And  this  affirmation  must  of  necessity  be  preferred.  On 
the  other  hand,  according  to  S.  Luke  the  day  on  which 
Joseph  of  Arimathaea  presented  himself  before  Pilate  and 
obtained  from  him  the  body  of  Jesus  crucified,  in  order 
to  convey  it  away  to  the  sepulchre  hewn  in  the  rock, 
was  the  day  of  the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  already 
was  dawning.6  Thus  at  break  of  day  on  the  Sabbath 
Jesus  was  already  dead.  According  to  S.  Mark,  the 
priests  and  the  scribes  were  already  resolved  two  days 
before  the  Passover  to  take  Jesus  with  subtlety  and  kill 
Him,  but  they  said,  "  Not  during  the  feast,  lest  haply 
there  shall  be  a  tumult  of  the  people."  7  Hence  neither 
the  arrest  nor  the  execution  can  have  taken  place  on  the 
Passover.  And  in  truth  the  whole  array  of  facts  con- 
cerning that  memorable  day  points  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  was  not  a  feast-day:  for  work  is  done  and  judgments 
are  given,  loads  are  carried  and  help  is  given  in  the 
carrying  out  of  condemnations. 

We  may  therefore  with  safety  rest  assured  that  the  day 
was  the  Friday  preceding  the  Paschal  Sabbath.8     Now 


232        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

in  that  year  the  Sabbath  fell,  as  S.  Luke  and  S.  John 
attest,  on  Saturday,  Nisan  15,  lasting  from  sunset  on 
the  7th  till  sunset  on  the  8th  of  April.  Thus  Jesus  was 
arrested  on  the  evening  of  the  Thursday  preceding  April 
6,  when,  as  the  sun  was  already  set,  Nisan  14  had  begun. 
And  since  the  Hebrew  day  lasted  until  sunset  on  the  7th, 
thus  not  only  the  arrest,  which  took  place  on  the  begin- 
ning of  Nisan  14 — that  is  to  say,  on  the  evening  of  April 
6 — but  also  the  second  part  of  the  process,,  the  trial 
before  the  Sanhedrin  which  was  held  after  midnight,  the 
transfer  before  Pilate  and  the  execution,  took  place  on 
April  7,  corresponding  always  to  Nisan  14.9 

The  accusers,  therefore,  fr.om  dread  of  Levitical  con- 
tamination remained  outside  the  Praetorium.  Jesus, 
however,  was  made  to  enter,  according  to  the  fourth 
Evangelist ;  so  that  Pilate  in  order  to  speak  to  the  Jews 
was  forced  from  time  to  time  to  go  outside  and  to  come 
in  again  to  speak  with  the  Accused.10  It  would  seem  at 
the  first  glance  that,  according  to  the  Synoptics,  Jesus, 
Pilate,  and  the  accusers  were  together  in  one  place,  in 
the  open  air.  But  if  one  looks  well  into  the  context  of 
their  account,  it  is  impossible  to  deduce  any  such  con- 
clusion. Because  S.  Matthew  makes  Pilate  ask  Jesus, 
"  Hearest  thou  not  how  many  things  they  witness  against 
thee?  "  ll  and  S.  Mark,  "  Behold  how  many  things  they 
accuse  thee  of,"  12  these  two  expressions  do  not,  in  my 
belief,  exclude  the  supposition  that  Jesus  could  hear 
within  what  was  being  cried  without,  or  that  Pilate 
should  have  repeated  from  time  to  time  the  accusations, 
as  in  fact  S.  John  declares.  S.  Luke  does  not  define  the 
matter  at  all,  and  it  is  after  all  of  little  consequence. 
It  does  not  appear  to  me  of  any  use  arguing  as  does 
Strauss,13  in  the  face  of  so  simple  a  reconciliation  of 
facts  as  is  that  here  given,  that  S.  Matthew  insists  upon 
the  placing  of  Jesus  outside  the  Praetorium,  relating,  as 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS         233 

he  does,  that  He  was  shortly  afterwards  taken  inside; 14 
this  detail  took  place,  moreover,  after  Pilate,  according 
to  the  same  Evangelist,  had  released  Barabbas,  had  had 
Jesus  scourged,  and  had  handed  Him  over  to  the  Jews,15 
whereas  the  flagellation  at  least  must  have  been  per- 
formed in  the  Prsetorium.  The  further  difficulty  which 
has  been  raised  by  the  Louisbourg  biographer  does  not 
appear  to  me  to  have  any  great  value.  In  his  criticism 
of  S.  John's  version  he  remarks  that  if  the  examination 
took  place  inside  the  Prsetorium  and  the  Jews  remained 
outside,  it  is  not  clear  by  whom  the  proceedings  were 
heard  and  reported.16  In  the  first  place  it  is  not  said 
that  if  the  Jews  remained  strangers  to  the  fact,  therefore 
all  others  who  were  attached  to  the  person  of  the  Gov- 
ernor remained  strangers  to  it.  Moreover,  the  suppo- 
sition is  not  excluded  that  the  Governor  himself  may  have 
reported  what  occurred.  It  is  generally  admitted  that 
Pilate  sent  an  account  of  the  execution  to  Rome,  as  has 
already  been  maintained.17  There  is  besides  no  reason 
which  can  compel  us  to  believe  that  Pilate  observed 
secrecy  as  to  what  passed  between  him  and  Jesus  in  the 
Praetorium. 

This  place,  in  the  Latin  tongue,  signified  the  seat  which 
the  Roman  praator  assumed  for  the  administration  of 
justice.  In  the  Roman  provinces,  as  in  that  of  Judaea, 
this  name,  which  had  passed  into  the  Greek  and  even  into 
Syro-Chaldaic  languages,  denoted  the  palace  of  the  Gov- 
ernor. Pilate  occupied  the  palace  of  the  Herods  on  the 
hill  of  Zion,  which  we  know  from  Flavius  Josephus  had 
been  occupied  by  his  predecessors,  at  least  by  Florus 
Gessius,  the  successor  of  Albinus.18  Pilate's  tribune  (in 
Greek  Prjpa)  was  in  the  open  air,  on  the  spot  called 
Gabaatha  (in  Greek  XifloorptoTos )  from  the  kind  of 
pavement  formed  by  the  stratum  of  the  soil.19  I  do  not 
know  how  Lucke  comes  to  doubt  this  fact,  since  Josephus 


234        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

affirms  it  on  two  distinct  occasions  when  Pilate  mounts 
his  tribune,  once  at  Cassarea  and  once  actually  in  Jeru- 
salem.20 Moreover  Roman  trials  were  public;  and  it 
was  not  considered  possible  to  better  preserve  publicity 
than  by  administering  justice  under  the  open  sky. 

The  priests  and  elders  of  Jerusalem,  to  the  confusion 
of  any  who  imagine  that  they  came  from  the  holding  of 
a  regular  trial,  do  not  appear  here  before  the  Governor 
in  the  light  of  judges  merely  craving  the  carrying  out 
of  their  sentence.  From  the  first  words  which  they  ex- 
change with  Pilate  it  may  be  gathered,  it  is  true,  that 
they  had  some  intention  of  gaining  the  ratification  of  a 
deed  already  accomplished.  But  for  all  that  they  never 
mention  any  sentence,  and  the  Governor  never  mentions 
aught  but  an  accusation. 

As  they  arrived  without  on  the  steps  of  the  Gabaatha 
he  asked: 

"  What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?  "  And 
they  answered : 

"  If  this  man  were  not  an  evil-doer,  we  should  not  have 
delivered  him  up  unto  thee." 

Never  yet  had  they  straightened  their  backs  before 
foreign  authority,  cringing  subjects  as  they  were.  Evi- 
dently hatred  had  kindled  within  them  a  short-lived, 
fatuous  courage. 

Pilate  immediately  crushed  it. 

"  Take  Him  yourselves  and  judge  Him  according  to 
your  law." 

And  the  Jews: 

"  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death."  21 

It  would  be  quite  erroneous  to  gather  from  Pilate's  re- 
tort that  the  Governor  recognised  in  the  Jews  that  capi- 
tal jurisdiction  which  had  hitherto  been  combated.  Peo- 
ple interpret  his  retort  after  two  fashions:  either  the 
Governor  granted  them  in  this  instance  the  faculty  of 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        235 

carrying  out  capital  punishment,  or  else  he  proposed  to 
them  one  of  the  minor  penalties  of  which  they  preserved 
the  right.22  The  first  interpretation  is  inadmissible, 
because  if  the  Jews  had  been  able  to  understand  that  the 
Governor  conceded  them  the  power  of  executing  the 
sentence  they  had  already  pronounced,  they  would  have 
taken  him  at  his  word,  inasmuch,  be  it  carefully  noted, 
as  the  disability,  which  they  advanced,  of  being  unable 
to  put  to  death,  referred,  and  referred  almost  reproach- 
fully, to  the  power  usurped  by  Rome  and  not  to  any 
prohibition  in  the  Mosaic  law,  which  we  have  seen  was 
only  too  steeped  in  the  blood  of  capital  pains  and  penal- 
ties. On  the  other  hand  the  second  interpretation  is 
admissible  because  jurisdiction  of  capital  offences  had 
been  withdrawn  from  the  Sanhedrin,  but  not  that  of 
minor  crimes.23  In  any  case  the  final  reply  of  the  Jews, 
"  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death,"  is  a 
clinching  argument  in  refutation  of  the  common  error ; 
for  no  one  can  believe  that  "  put  to  death  "  (interficere) 
merely  refers  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  capital  pun- 
ishment and  not  to  the  pronouncing  of  a  sentence  of 
death. 

To  me,  unless  I  am  very  greatly  mistaken,  the  retort 
of  Pilate  appears  in  complete  accordance  with  his  false, 
cynical  soul,  evilly  disposed  towards  the  Jews  even  to 
the  point  of  sarcasm,  the  soul  which  later  disclosed 
itself  in  his  obstinate  refusal  to  alter  the  inscription 
affixed  to  the  cross;  and  it  is  this  that  makes  me  believe 
that  Pilate  wished  in  these  words  to  heap  ridicule  on  the 
Jews,  as  if  he  invited  them  to  exercise  a  prerogative  of 
which  the  Roman  Empire,  at  that  moment  and  at  that 
place  represented  by  himself,  had  despoiled  them.  By 
another  train  of  argument  Strauss  arrives  at  the  same 
conclusion.  He,  however,  entirely  neglects  the  question 
of  a  capital  jurisdiction  fallen  into  ruin,  propounding 


236         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  following  dilemma:  either  Pilate  did  not  think  of 
an  offence  involving  death,  or  else  he  wished  to  make 
mock  of  the  Jews.24 

And  if  it  is  permissible  to  adduce  the  independent  in- 
sight of  a  poet  in  support  of  a  matter  of  purely  historical 
research,  I  would  recall  that  Shakespeare,  in  his  Mer- 
chant of  Venice,  has  imagined  a  similar  way  of  turning  a 
Jew  to  ridicule  because  he  was  impotent  to  carry  the 
law  into  execution.  The  Jew  Shylock,  in  stipulating 
a  usurious  loan,  inserted  the  clause  that  if  on  falling  due 
the  debt  should  not  be  paid,  the  debtor  must  allow  a 
pound  of  flesh  to  be  cut  from  his  body.  On  the  ex- 
piration of  the  bond  the  debt  was  not  discharged,  and 
Shylock  then  appeared  before  the  Doge  to  claim  the 
fulfilment  of  the  compact,  the  pound  of  human  flesh. 
But  a  girl,  the  friend  of  the  debtor,  Portia,  donned  the 
habit  and  speech  of  a  lawyer  in  his  defence,  and  called 
triumphantly  to  the  Jew :  "  The  bond  allows  thee  a  pound 
of  flesh  but  not  a  drop  of  blood.  Avail  thee  of  thy 
law:  take  thy  pound  of  flesh,  but  if  in  cutting  it  thou 
spill  one  drop  of  Christian  blood,  by  the  law  of  Venice 
thy  lands  and  goods  shall  be  confiscated  to  the  enrichment 
of  the  State."  25 

As  he  in  no  way  recognised  the  highest  judicial  power 
in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  Pilate  certainly  did  not  intend 
with  respect  to  that  jurisdiction  to  surrender  it  in  neg- 
lecting, from  the  very  moment  that  the  Accused  was 
brought  before  him,  the  complete  and  regular  course  of 
proceedings  the  responsibility  for  which  must  rest  en- 
tirely with  himself  and  be  carried  out  from  beginning 
to  end  in  accordance  with  the  safeguards  of  legal  forms 
and  requirements  of  evidence.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Governor  did  not  summon  a  single  witness,  did  not  verify 
any  evidence,  did  not  set  before  himself  any  investiga- 
tion as  to  innocence  or  guilt,  nay,  as  we  shall  see,  he  was 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        237 

satisfied  as  to  the  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  and  yet  de- 
cided in  favour  of  guilt  and  condemnation. 

Meanwhile  the  so-called  judges  of  the  Sanhedrin  were 
continuing  to  play  the  part  of  prosecutors.  After  the 
failure  of  the  demand  first  hazarded,  that  the  Governor 
should  approve  of  their  reason  for  giving  up  the  Ac- 
cused, they  quickly  fell  to  making  charges,  which  are 
in  absolute  contradiction  with  the  supposed  condem- 
nation, or  rather  with  the  real  solemn  accusation  pro- 
nounced within  the  walls  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

They  began  by  saying,  "  We  found  this  man  per- 
verting our  nation  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to 
Caesar,  and  saying  that  He  Himself  is  Christ  a  King."  26 
Two  lies  in  four  words.  Because  the  instigation  to  refuse 
the  fiscal  due  to  Caesar  was  as  unfounded  as  the  contrary 
example  given  by  Jesus  was  true.  And  if  it  was  true 
that  He  had  called  Himself  Christ,  it  was  false  that  He 
perverted  the  nation  and  proclaimed  Himself  King.27 

It  is  therefore  noteworthy  that  in  the  short  passage 
from  the  Sanhedrin  to  the  Praetorium  the  whole  method 
and  language  of  the  accusation  changed.  But  a  little 
time  before,  at  the  hearing  before  the  Sanhedrin,  the 
allegation  of  sedition  had  been  finally  dismissed,  as  all 
proof  of  the  pretended  destruction  of  the  temple  had 
broken  down  and  the  guilt  of  Jesus  had  been  declared 
upon  the  charge  of  blasphemy  alone,  a  charge  purely 
and  exclusively  of  a  religious  character.  Here,  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Praetorium,  the  charge  of  blasphemy  was 
abandoned  and  that  of  sedition  taken  up  again.  Evi- 
dently the  Jews  knew  the  weak  side  of  Pilate's  character 
— sceptical  towards  their  beliefs,  timorous  and  cowardly 
when  it  was  a  question  of  the  wish  or  advantage  of  Rome. 
But  he  did  not  feel  that  he  was  being  ca j  oled  or  flattered 
by  this. 

He  asked  Jesus  rather  out  of  astonishment  than  by 


238        ,THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

way  of  reproof :  "  Hearest  Thou  not  how  many  things 
they  accuse  Thee  of,"  and  again  "  Art  Thou  the  King 
of  the  Jews?"  "  Sayest  thou  this  thing  of  thyself," 
answered  Jesus,  "  or  did  others  tell  thee  of  Me  ?  "  28 

He  was  right  in  wishing  first  to  know  whether  this 
new  charge  was  advanced  by  the  Romans  or  the  Jews, 
in  order  that  He  might  settle  in  what  light  He  should 
regard  it,  and  in  order  that  He  might  return  a  fitting 
answer.  For,  as  to  being  a  king  in  the  heathen  sense, 
His  answer  could  only  be  a  determined  negative.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  "  King  of  the  Jews  "  could  be  con- 
strued either  in  a  political  or  a  religious  sense,  and  con- 
sequently the  answer  depended  on  the  quality  of  the  per- 
son addressing  the  question.  If  addressed  to  him  by  the 
Roman  Governor,  the  question  had  a  political  meaning. 
If  the  question  was  provoked  by  the  Jews,  it  could  have 
nothing  but  a  religious  signification,  and  in  this  case 
Jesus  could  not  reject  the  title  of  King  without  denying 
His  mission  as  Messiah. 

Pilate  appears  to  spurn  the  bold  theory  that  the  un- 
resisting prisoner  before  him,  seemingly  careless  of  His 
position  as  a  candidate  for  execution,  could  have  deemed 
Himself  King  as  against  the  infinite  power  of  Rome, 
and  He  answers : 

"  Am  I  a  Jew?  Thine  own  nation  and  the  chief  priests 
delivered  Thee  unto  me:  what  hast  Thou  done?  " 

Then  Jesus  replied: 

"  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world ;  if  My  Kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  My  servants  fight,  that 
I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews;  but  now  is  My 
Kingdom  not  from  hence."  29 

This  answer  was  the  strongest,  justest,  and  most  safe 
defence,  since  it  could  not  be  reduced  to  a  gratuitous 
rejoinder,  but  bore  in  it  a  claim  that  could  not  be  re- 
jected, and  at  the  same  time  a  resolute  defiance:  it  called 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         239 

for  some  proof  of  the  mundane  aspirations  of  the  inno- 
vator. And  were  the  accusers  courageous  enough  to 
essay  such  a  proof?  The  Governor  did  not  even  think 
of  demanding  such  a  proof:  too  well  he  knew  the  mad 
fevered  passion  of  their  superstitious  fury. 

He  thought  better  to  press  his  prisoner  with  questions. 

"  Art  thou  a  King  then?  " 

And  the  prisoner  answered: 

"  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  King.  To  this  end  have 
I  been  born,  and  to  this  end  am  I  come  into  the  world, 
that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one 
that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  My  voice." 

And  the  Governor  remarked,  for  it  was  scarcely  a 
question : 

"What  is  truth?" 

Again  he  went  outside  and  said  to  the  Jews : 

"  I  find  no  crime  in  Him."  30 

The  remark  he  had  let  fall,  without  awaiting  a  reply, 
contained  no  desire  to  know  the  truth.  It  was  but 
the  natural  putting  into  words  of  that  senseless,  arrogant 
scepticism  which  so  often  characterises  the  man  in  power, 
and  which  appears  to  him  practical  and  scientific,  but 
is  in  reality  false  and  clumsy;  the  scepticism  which  ad- 
mits of  no  inner  yearnings,  no  lofty  inspirations  soaring 
above  and  beyond  the  vulgar  circle  of  legality. 

The  accusers,  when  they  saw  the  Governor  reappear 
upon  the  tribune,  when  they  felt  that  the  case  for  the 
prosecution  was  on  the  point  of  collapsing  in  an  acquit- 
tal, burst  into  fresh  flames  of  fury  and  pressed  forward 
with  new  falsehoods: 

"  He  stirreth  up  the  people,  preaching  throughout  all 
Judsea,  and  beginning  from  Galilee."  31 

This  last  word  was  as  good  as  an  inspiration  to  Pilate's 
diplomatic  cunning. 


240        THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  11,  12;  S.  Mark  xv.  1;  S.  Luke  xxiii.  1; 
S.  John  xviii.  28. 

2  Exodus  xii.  14  et  seq.,  39.     Castelli  disagrees  with  this  as  being 
the  original  meaning  of  the  rule,  but  he  furnishes  no  other  ex- 
planation (La  leg.  del  pop,  Ebr.  caps  v.  and  ix.  pp.  146  and  263). 
The  rites  observed  at  the  Jewish  Passover  were  moreover  two 
in  number:  the  first  consisted  in  the  sacrifice  of  a  lamb,  which 
was  immolated  towards  evening  on  the  14th  day  of  the  first 
month  of  spring,  and  of  which  the  roasted  flesh  was  eaten  to- 
gether with  unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs ;  the  second  was 
the  feast  of  seven  days,  whereby  the  first  and  seventh  were  to 
be  kept  holy  with  the  obligation  to  abstain  from  all  fermented 
food. 

3  S.  John  xviii.  28  et  seq. 

4  S.  Matthew  xxvi.  2,  17-19 ;  S.  Mark  xiv.  12-17 ;  S.  Luke 
xxii.  7-11. 

6  S.  John  xk.  14. 

6  S.  Luke  xxiii.  54.     One  cannot  read  the  "  tomb  that  was 
hewn  hi  stone  "  of  this  passage  without  recalling  the  area  scavata 
of  Manzoni  (Resurrez.) — a  faithful  and  elegant  rendering  of  the 
great  biblical  idea,   and  which  nevertheless  elicited  from  the 
last  of  the  purists  the  pedantic  remark,  "  Vedestu'  mai  un'  area 
non  iscavata  ?  " 

7  S.  Mark  xiv.  1,  2. 

8Cf.  Farrar,  Comment,  to  the  Gospel  oj  S.  Luke\  and  Bonghi, 
Vita,  appendix  vi. 

9  See  chap.  ix.  note  2. 

10  S.  John  xviii.  28-40. 

11  xxvii.  13. 

12   xy      4 

13  Par.  128. 

14  xxvii.  27. 

15  xxvii.  26. 

16  Par.  128. 

17  See  chap.  xvi.  note  11. 

18  De  betto  judaico,  n.  xiv.  7. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         241 

19  S.  John  xix.  13;  Strauss,  Vie,  par.  131  note;  Renan,  Vie, 
chap.  xxiv. 

20  De  bello  jud.  n.  ix.  2  and  3  ;  cf.  Liicke  in  Strauss,  op.  dt. 

21  S.  John  xviii.  29-31.     Didon,  following  the  general  opinion, 
says:  "These  proud  judges  did  not  admit  that  their  sentence 
could  be  invalidated  or  disputed,  and  all  they  required  of  the 
Governor  was  an  immediate  execution,  because  the  case  being 
clear  and  decided  by  them,  there  was  nothing  for  him  to  find 
fault  with  "  (Jesus-Chr.  ch.  x.).     But  what  a  sentence  and  what 
an  execution!    The  so-called  judges  demanded  only  that  it  should 
not  be  believed  that  they  had  brought  an  unfounded  charge  of 
crime;  and  this  is  why  they  began  by  crying,  "  If  this  were  not 
an  evil-doer,"  etc. 

22  Jansenius,  Comm.  in  Cone.  cap.  cxli. 

23  See  chap.  x. 

24  Vie,  par.  131 .    The  first  of  the  two  alternatives  of  the  dilemma 
coincides  with  the  second  hypothesis  of  Jansenius  referred  to 
above. 

25  Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  I.  sc.  iii.,  Act  IV.  sc.  i.  et  seq.    Thus 
also  Pilate  said,  "  Take  Him  yourselves  and  judge  Him  accord- 
ing to  your  law." 

26  S.  Luke  xxiii.  2. 

27  See  chap.  v. 

28  S.  John  xviii.  33,  34.     One  cannot  understand  the  difficulty 
of  the  commentators  with  regard  to  this  sudden  question  ad- 
dressed, according  to  the  fourth  Evangelist,  by  Pilate  to  Jesus. 
In  S.  John  it  is  true  the  question  is  unexpected,  sudden,  and  un- 
provoked; but  it  is  not  so  according  to  the  version  of  the  other 
Evangelists,  by  whom  S.  John's  account  should  be  supplemented. 
See  e.g.  S.  Luke  xxiii.  2. 

29  Ibid,  35,  36. 

30  S.  John  xviii.  37,  38. 

31  S.  Luke  xxiii.  5. 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

From  Pilate  to  Herod— From  Herod  to  Pilate— How  the  Te- 
trarch  could  not  have  had  Jurisdiction  over  Jesus,  although 
a  Galilean — Herod  questions  the  Prisoner,  who  does  not 
answer — Meaning  of  His  Silence — How  the  Scribes  and 
Priests  repeated  the  Charges  before  Herod — Jesus  is  sent 
back  to  Pilate  in  a  White  Garment — The  Second  Expedient 
of  a  Simple  Chastisement — Its  Failure,  and  the  Recourse  of 
the  Governor  to  a  Third  Expedient. 

"GALILEE?"  must  have  thought  Pilate.  "If  the 
prisoner  is  a  Galilean,  I  wash  my  hands  of  him  hence- 
forth." 

And  this  was  no  mere  airy  thought  on  his  part.  There 
happened  to  be  at  that  moment  in  Jerusalem  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  kingdom  of  Galilee  and  of  Perea.  This  was 
Herod  Antipas.  He  was  a  crownless  king  entirely  given 
up  to  the  licentious  pleasures  which  had  led  him  to  have 
S.  John  the  Baptist  put  to  death.  It  appears  that  as  the 
Passover  came  round  he  was  wont  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
no  doubt  in  search  of  distraction,  and  certainly  out  of 
no  feeling  of  piety.  The  Governor,  on  the  other  hand, 
had  his  official  residence  in  Caesarea,  the  political  capital 
of  Judaea,  and  he  was  in  the  religious  capital  for  the  ful- 
filment of  his  duties.  He  there  performed  the  custom- 
ary acts  of  devotion  and  preserved  public  order. 

At  the  mention  of  Galilee,  therefore,  the  Governor 
asked  the  prisoner  whether  He  were  from  that  country, 
and  learning  that  He  was,  handed  Him  over  to  the 
Tetrarch,  who  had  criminal  jurisdiction  over  his  sub- 

242 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        243 

jects.1  This  was  the  first  of  those  unhappy  subterfuges 
which  Pilate  resorted  to  in  his  desperate  attempt  to  avoid 
the  responsibilities  of  his  office ;  all  of  them  were  destined 
to  prove  ineffectual.  This  particular  evasion  could  not 
well  have  been  more  clumsy  or  more  unfortunate  from 
the  point  of  view  of  either  Mosaic  or  Roman  law.  In  the 
judicial  organisation  of  the  Jews  there  were  tribunals, 
as  we  have  already  said,  of  three  degrees.  The  first  was 
the  Grand  Sanhedrin,  resident  at  Jerusalem.  It  pos- 
sessed supreme  competence.  In  the  cities  containing  a 
minimum  of  a  hundred  and  twenty  adult  male  inhabitants 
were  instituted  the  minor  Sanhedrim.  The  third  degree 
consisted  of  inferior  tribunals  filled  by  three  judges.2 
Hence  it  is  manifest  that  if  Jesus  could  be  tried  by  a 
Hebrew  tribunal,  the  sole  tribunal  competent  to  try  Him 
was  the  Grand  Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem.  This  court 
judged  Him  for  better  or  for  worse,  so  that  the  trial 
before  Herod  must  have  been  the  repetition  of  an  abuse. 
In  virtue  of  what  exception  could  there  have  been  resort 
to  the  Tetrarch  of  Galilee  and  Perea,  if  those  regions, 
like  the  whole  of  Syria,  were  under  Roman  hegemony? 
In  this  case,  to  the  defect  of  jurisdiction  was  joined  the 
want  of  competence,  because,  under  the  supposed  but  not 
admissible  jurisdiction  of  the  Hebrew  authorities,  the 
Grand  Sanhedrin  alone  would  have  been  competent  to  try 
the  case.  Moreover,  the  improvised  competence  of  Herod 
would  suppose  a  criminal  jurisdiction  which  at  the  time 
of  these  events  was  no  longer  conferred  upon  the  kings. 
Such  a  jurisdiction  is  doubtful  and  disputed.  It  was,  at 
all  events,  curtailed  at  the  time  of  the  government  of  the 
kings.  The  biblical  chronicler  informs  us,  in  fact,  that 
David  himself  elected  from  amongst  the  Levites  six 
thousand  officers  of  justice,  while  King  Jehoshaphat  in- 
stituted judges  in  all  the  cities,  and  at  the  same  time 
a  species  of  supreme  tribunal  at  Jerusalem.3  Thus, 


244        THE   TRIAL7  OF   JESUS 

even  if  we  set  aside  the  question  as  to  whether  Herod 
Antipas  really  was  or  was  not  a  king  with  all  the 
attributes  of  royal  power,  he  had  neither  the  jurisdiction 
nor  the  competence  necessary  to  judge  the  Galilean 
Jesus.  It  would  have  been  curious  to  see  with  what 
forms  of  a  regular  tribunal,  momentarily  established  at 
Jerusalem,  he  could  have  carried  out  a  criminal  trial 
or  put  a  sentence  of  death  into  execution. 

According  to  the  system  of  Roman  procedure,  juris- 
diction resided  in  the  Governor,  not  only  by  right  of 
conquest  of  war,  but  competence  was  also  vested  in  him 
on  the  ground  of  territoriality,  always  remembering  the 
character  of  the  offence  alleged  against  Jesus.  His 
prosecutors  insisted  tenaciously  upon  His  answering  to 
a  charge  of  continuous  sedition,  as  lawyers  call  it.  This 
offence  had  been  begun  in  Galilee  and  ended  in  Jerusalem 
— that  is  to  say,  in  Judaea.  Now  it  was  a  rule  of  Roman 
law,  which  the  procurator  of  Rome  could  neither  fail  to 
recognise  nor  afford  to  neglect,  that  the  competence  of 
a  court  territorially  constituted  was  determined  either  by 
the  place  in  which  the  arrest  was  made,  or  by  the  place 
in  which  the  offence  was  committed.4  Jesus  had  been  ar- 
rested at  the  gates  of  Jerusalem ;  His  alleged  offence  had 
been  committed  for  the  most  part,  and  as  far  as  all  the 
final  acts  were  concerned,  in  the  city  itself  and  in  other 
localities  of  Judaea.  In  continuous  offences  competence 
was  determined  by  the  place  in  which  the  last  acts  going 
to  constitute  the  offence  had  been  committed.5  Thus  no 
justification  whatever  existed  for  determining  the  court 
with  regard  to  the  prisoner's  origin.  But  this  investiga- 
tion upon  a  point  of  Roman  law  is  to  all  intents  super- 
fluous, because  either  Pilate,  when  he  thought  of  Herod, 
intended  to  strip  himself  of  his  inalienable  judicial 
power,  and  in  this  case  he  ought  to  have  respected  the 
jurisdiction  and  competence  of  the  Grand  Sanhedrin 


THE   TRIAL  OF  JESUS        245 

and  not  to  have  busied  himself  with  a  conflict  as  to 
cognisance  which  should  only  have  been  discussed  and 
resolved  by  the  Jewish  judicial  authorities;  or  else  he 
had  no  intention  of  abdicating  his  power,  and  in  this 
case  he  ought  never  to  have  raised  the  question  of  com- 
petence between  himself,  Governor  of  Judaea,  and  Herod, 
Regent  of  Galilee,  but  between  himself  and  the  Roman 
Vice-Govcrnor  of  Galilee,  his  colleague  if  there  had  been 
such  an  one.  It  is  only  between  judges  of  the  same  ju- 
dicial hierarchy  that  a  dispute  as  to  territorial  compe- 
tence can  arise.  Between  magistrates  of  different  States 
there  can  only  exist  a  contrast  of  power  and  jurisdiction. 

The  act  of  Pilate  cannot  then  be  interpreted  as  a  scruple 
of  a  constitutional  character.  It  is  but  a  miserable  escape 
for  his  irresolution,  a  mere  endeavour  to  temporise ;  there 
may  have  been  in  it  a  touch  of  deference  and  adulation 
towards  the  Tetrarch,  with  whom  the  restless  Governor 
had,  up  to  then,  been  at  enmity — perhaps  on  account  of 
his  massacre  of  the  Galileans,  whose  blood  Pilate  had 
mingled  with  the  sacrifices.6  If  this  was  not  the  object 
of  this  clever  move,  it  was  at  all  events  the  result,  for 
from  that  day  Herod  and  Pilate  became  friends.7  Herod 
had  long  desired  to  see  Jesus,  of  whom  he  had  heard  so 
many  stories.  He  was  exceedingly  rejoiced  on  seeing 
Him  led  down  from  the  tower  of  Antonia  to  the  palace 
of  the  Asmonean  princes.  He  was  inquisitive  like  a  man 
entirely  given  over  to  pleasure.  He  hoped  to  witness 
the  working  of  some  miracle  as  he  would  have  looked 
on  a  new  and  marvellous  court  spectacle. 

And  he  questioned  Him  in  many  words;  but  He  an- 
swered him  nothing.8 

Strauss,  who  has  the  greatest  difficulty  in  believing 
the  episode  of  the  sending  before  Herod,  merely  because 
it  is  vouched  for  by  S.  Luke  and  passed  over  by  the  re- 
maining Evangelists,  is  astonished  at  the  prisoner's 


246        THE   TRIAL  OF  JESUS 

silence.  "  How  comes  it,"  asked  Strauss,  "  that  Jesus, 
not  only  the  Jesus  without  sin  of  the  orthodox  school, 
but  also  the  Jesus  who  bowed  to  the  constituted  authori- 
ties, who  says  '  Give  unto  Caesar  that  which  is  Caesar's  ' — 
how  comes  it  that  He  refuses  the  answer  due  to  Herod  ?  "  9 
It  might  first  of  all  be  remarked  that  Herod  is  not  Caesar, 
but  such  an  answer  would  be  as  sophistical  as  the  objec- 
tion to  which  it  replies  is  specious.  In  reality  the  atti- 
tude of  Jesus  towards  the  constituted  authorities  was  not 
one  of  subservience,  but  one  of  pure  and  simple  indif- 
ference, as  His  earthly  mission  aimed  neither  at  over- 
riding nor  replacing  them.  Besides,  the  recognition  of 
an  authority  does  not  entail  any  cringing  to  the  abuse 
which  is  made  of  it.  Moreover,  Jesus  injured  Himself 
and  not  the  authority  by  refusing  to  answer.  Who 
knows  what  the  questions  were  which  the  Tetrarch  put 
to  the  Galilean?  His  silence  is  easily  explained  by  the 
unseemly  nature  of  the  question,  which  according  to 
Strauss  "  displayed  simple  curiosity." 

The  authenticity  of  the  incident  is  not  impaired  by 
the  fact  that  it  is  only  recorded  by  S.  Luke,  while  it 
is  neither  denied  nor  excluded  by  the  other  Evangelists. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  confirmed  by  old  tradition  and  is 
to  be  met  with  in  Justin.10  Certain  over-subtle  critics 
have  discussed  the  question  as  to  whether  Pilate  delivered 
Jesus  by  a  postern  to  those  who  escorted  Him  before 
Herod,  so  that  S.  John,  being  unable  to  witness  the  occur- 
rence, did  not  report  it.11  The  matter  is  unimportant. 
Such  a  supposition  cannot  stand  in  face  of  the  doubt 
whether  the  author  of  the  Gospel  known  as  S.  John's 
was  really  S.  John  or  another  apostle  who  happened  to 
be  near  the  main  gate  of  the  Sanhedrin.  It  also  fails 
to  answer  the  question  why  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark 
do  not  mention  the  episode.  Even  if  they  were  them- 
selves absent,  they  must  have  been  informed  about  the 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS        247 

matter,  which  was  of  public  knowledge  and  at  which 
the  same  prosecutors  were  present.  The  only  explana- 
tion of  the  silence  of  the  three  Evangelists  is  that  they 
did  not  ascribe  such  importance  to  the  event  as  to  con- 
sider it  requiring  mention. 

Before  Herod  it  was  still  the  scribes  and  priests  who 
repeated  the  charges  pertinaciously.  But  Jesus  held 
His  peace.  Herod  scoffed  at  Him  for  .the  small  train  of 
soldiers  and  courtiers  which  followed  Him ; 12  clothed 
Him,  out  of  mockery,  in  a  garment  of  white  and  sent 
Him  back  to  Pilate.  Why  the  intention  of  ridiculing 
Jesus  should  have  suggested  a  white  garment  to  Herod, 
it  is  impossible  to  decide.  It  cannot  be  admitted  that  he 
wished  to  indicate  that  Jesus  was  mad;  as  we  are  not 
aware  that  there  has  ever  been  a  colour  assigned  to  mad 
people.  The  white  garment  was  the  peculiar  dress  of 
illustrious  persons ;  Tacitus  even  tells  us  that  the  tribunes 
were  thus  attired  when  they  went  before  the  eagles  into 
battle.  Perhaps  the  Tetrarch  had  in  mind  the  irony  of 
this  Roman  custom;  perhaps  he  was  thinking  of  the 
candidates  at  Rome  itself,  who  wore  the  toga  in  com- 
peting for  any  high  office.13  Led  by  spontaneous  intui- 
tion, the  common  people  believe  willingly  in  the  episode 
narrated, by  S.  Luke,  as  arousing  keener  pity,  and  they 
reconstruct  and  picture  the  scene,  vividly  recalling  a 
heart-breaking  comparison  with  the  daily  records  of  con- 
temporary judicial  proceedings,  which  so  often  are  con- 
ducted amid  the  same  incertitudes  and  the  same  vicis- 
situdes. What  hopeless  steps  a  prisoner  to-day  has  to 
trace  from  court  to  prison,  from  prison  to  magistrate, 
from  magistrate  to  procurator-general,  from  these  to 
the  judge !  How  many  delays,  how  many  devious  tracks, 
await  him  before  he  can  be  tried!  The  thought  of  the 
luckless  wretch  spontaneously  reverts  to  the  prisoner  who 
was  led  from  Pilate  to  Herod,  and  from  Herod  to  Pilate, 


248        THE   TRIAL  OF  JESUS 

before  it  turns  to  find  upon  the  height  of  Golgotha  the 
consoling  example  of  a  great  and  final  injustice. 

Pilate,  on  the  return  of  Jesus,  must  have  felt  convinced 
that  not  only  had  his  first  expedient  proved  an  absolute 
failure,  but  that  his  position  had  been  thereby  rendered 
even  more  difficult.  Herod  had  not  met  his  offer  by 
a  preliminary  refusal  to  act,  as  he  might  have  done 
considering  his  manifest  incompetence.  He  had,  on  the 
contrary,  delivered  a  judgment  in  uncompromising 
favour  of  the  Accused,  in  whom  he  found  nothing 
justifying  a  condemnation.  The  acquittal  by  the  Te- 
trarch  increased  the  hesitancy  of  the  Governor. 

Pilate  again  assembled  the  priests  and  elders,  and 
said: 

"  Ye  brought  unto  me  this  man,  as  one  that  perverteth 
the  people:  and  behold,  I,  having  examined  Him  before 
you,  found  no  fault  in  this  man  touching  the  things 
whereof  ye  accuse  Him,  no,  nor  yet  Herod ;  for  he  sent 
Him  back  unto  us ;  and  behold,  nothing  worthy  of  death 
hath  been  done  by  Him.  I  will  therefore  chastise  Him 
and  release  Him."  14 

This  promise  was  a  second  expedient  not  more  legal 
or  more  fortunate  than  the  first.  If  the  prisoner  was 
guilty,  He  deserved  the  punishment  appropriate  to  His 
crime,  and  this  punishment  could  not  be  a  mere  chastise- 
ment. If  He  was  innocent,  it  was  not  right  that  He 
should  be  chastised  at  all.  It  appears  that  the  people 
were  not  satisfied  with  the  proposal,  and  that  they  gave 
vent  to  manifestations,  which  caused  the  Governor  to 
turn  suddenly  from  this  expedient  to  another. 

And  it  was  the  third.15 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        249 


NOTES 

1  S.  Luke  xxiii.  5-7:  "  He  sent  Him  unto  Herod,  who  himself 
also  was  at  Jerusalem  in  these  days."     The  expression  "  himself 
also  "  indicates  the  extraordinary  nature  of  Pilate's  presence  at 
Jerusalem,  as  well  as  of  that  of  the  Tetrarch.     It  is  also  to  be 
noted  that  the  declaration  here  made  of  Jesus  of  being  a  Gali- 
lean confirms  his  origin,  which  was  from  Nazareth  in  Galilee, 
and  does  not  refer  to  his  birth,  which  took  place  at  Bethlehem 
in  Judaea.     Olshausen  also  remarks  that  the  examination  before 
Herod  shows  that  Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  not  at  Nazareth; 
but  his  argument  is  forced.     Strauss  is  well  able  to  reply  to  Ols- 
hausen that  the  purely  accidental  birth  in  Judaea,  as  we  know 
from  S.  Luke,  would  not  have  sufficed  to  make  Jesus  a  Jew, 
since  his  parents  had  their  dwelling  before  and  after  His  birth  in 
Galilee  (Vie,  par.  131). 

2  See  chap.  xii. 


4  L.  1  and  2,  Cod.  Ubi  de  criminibus,  15,  3. 

5  Cf.  Art.  17,  Cod.  Proc.  Pen.  passim. 

6  S.  Luke  xiii.  1. 

7  S.  Luke  xxiii.  12. 

8  S.  Luke  xxiii.  8,  9. 

9  Vie,  par.  131  .^ 

10  Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  103. 

11  Schleiermacher,  Ueber  die  Lukas,  p.  291. 

12  Wilk,  Schenkl,  and  Rosenmiiller  interpret  the  words  cum 
exercitu  suo  (Vulgate)  differently:  the  most  acceptable  sense  is 
that  of  a  kind  of  "  military  household  "  of  the  sovereign. 

13  Tacitus,  Hist.  ii.  89. 

14  S.  Luke  xxiii.  13-16. 

15  S.  Luke  xxiii.  16,  17.    The  sudden  passage  from  verses  16  to 
17  is  noteworthy  ;  hi  the  first-mentioned  the  expedient  of  the 
chastisement,  in  the  second  that  of  Barabbas,  as  if  the  first  had 
been  rejected,  and  was  not  a  mere  momentary  proposal. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

The  pardoning  of  Barabbas — What  we  know  about  him — It  is 
denied  that  this  Pardon  was  founded  on  Mosaic  Law — Its 
Foundation  is  looked  for  in  Roman  Law — The  Various  Ex- 
tinctions of  the  Penal  Sanction :  Expiation,  Death,  Pardon, 
Indulgence,  Public  and  Private  Rescission — It  is  shown  how 
Pilate  could  have  only  set  Barabbas  Free  by  Virtue  of  a 
Private  Rescission — The  Liberation  of  Barabbas  should 
have  taken  place  in  Consequence  of  a  Demand  from  the 
Prosecutors,  and  not  at  the  Pleasure  of  the  Judge. 

UPON  the  day  of  the  Passover  it  was  customary  for  the 
Governor  to  set  at  liberty  a  prisoner  selected  by  the 
people.  This  is  what  the  Evangelists  tell  us.1  S.  Luke 
even  asserts  that  the  Governor  was  under  an  obligation 
to  do  so.2  According  to  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke,  it  was 
the  people  themselves  who  recollected  the  custom  and 
asked  that  Jesus  should  be  put  to  death  and  Barabbas 
set  free.  According  to  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John,  the 
idea  of  the  release  was  Pilate's  own. 

Barabbas  was  well  known.3  S.  John  says  he  was  a 
robber4  who  had  but  of  late  been  arrested  for  sedition 
stirred  up  within  the  city  and  for  a  murder  committed 
on  that  occasion.5  Hence  the  people,  suborned  by  the 
priests  and  elders,  clamoured  for  the  freedom  of  the 
murderer,  rioter,  and  robber. 

It  has  been  debated  amongst  the  interpreters  of  the 
New  Testament  whether  the  custom  which  favoured 
Barabbas  was  of  Jewish  or  Roman  origin.  The 
majority  have  inclined  to  the  first  opinion,  and  some 

250 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         251 

have  gone  so  far  as  to  perceive  in  the  custom  a  symbol 
of  the  liberty  obtained  by  Israel  on  its  issue  out  of 
Egypt  at  the  first  Passover.6  The  opinion  is  no  less 
erroneous  than  the  conjecture  is  arbitrary.  The  ques- 
tion can  only  be  resolved  by  reference  to  the  fountain- 
head  of  Mosaic  and  Roman  law  in  order  to  know  if 
and  how  the  usage  was  sanctioned  by  one  law  or  the 
other. 

We  have  already,  in  tracing  the  guiding  spirit  of 
Mosaic  penal  legislation,  demonstrated  that  any  idea 
involving  condonation  of  a  penalty  was  irreconcilable 
with  the  principles  and  provisions  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
This  law  was  regarded  as  something  divine,  and  could 
not  admit  either  of  limitations  or  merciful  correctives 
in  its  application.  The  kings  themselves,  in  their  day, 
were  deprived  of  the  prerogative  of  mercy.  But  they 
possessed  the  contrary  power  of  supplementing,  by 
their  decrees,  the  deficiencies  of  the  law  and  of  sending 
to  execution  the  guilty  prisoner  to  procure  whose  judi- 
cial condemnation  there  were  no  sufficient  judicial  argu- 
ments.7 Moreover,  search  the  Mosaic  law  as  we  will, 
we  find  not  a  single  provision  revealing  the  institution 
of  mercy  among  the  Jews.  We  must  then  seek  in 
Roman  law  for  the  juridical  foundation  of  the  preroga- 
tive which  Pilate  desired  to  exercise  in  favour  of  Jesus, 
and  which  the  people  claimed  for  the  benefit  of  Barabbas. 

With  the  permission  of  those  who  persist  in  discover- 
ing so  deep  an  imperfection  in  Roman  law  as  to  regard 
it  as  a  subject  for  historians  and  scholars  exclusively 
rather  than  for  jurists,  and  insist  upon  understanding 
by  Roman  law  what  in  modern  language  is  called  civil 
law  8 — with  their  permission  we  are  bound  to  recognise 
that  Roman  legislation  embodied  all  the  rules  which  have 
been  accepted  by  less  imperfect  systems  of  law  with  re- 
gard to  the  extinction  of  the  penal  sanction. 


252        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  that  the  law  which  pro- 
vides for  the  protection  of  society  should  have  the  double 
sanction  of  prosecuting  the  crime  and  of  carrying  out 
the  punishment.  But  in  every  legislation  there  are  ad- 
mitted ordinary  and  extraordinary  causes  of  exception, 
by  which  either  the  development  of  the  action  by  which 
the  offence  is  prosecuted  is  cut  short  or  the  carrying 
out  of  the  penalty  is  stopped.  Under  the  rule  of  a 
logical  and  rigid  public  defence,  the  principle  should 
allow  of  no  exceptions:  the  Roman  orator  based  his 
conception  and  his  confidence  on  the  integrity  of  a  law 
which  could  not  be  overruled  by  the  authority  of  the 
senate  or  the  will  of  the  people.9  But  he  himself  en- 
joyed the  benefits  of  an  exception,  since  to  it  he  owed 
the  termination  of  the  bitter  days  of  exile.  And  the 
conception  is  to  be  met  with  in  a  greater  or  less  degree 
in  all  legislations  from  the  Roman  downward. 

The  normal  extinction  of  the  punitive  sanction  was 
the  expiation  of  the  penalty : 10  the  natural  extinction 
was  the  death  of  the  accused  and  convicted  prisoner. 
The  principle  of  the  personality  of  crime  and  punish- 
ment rendered  any  posthumous  sanction  impossible; 
and  it  was  only  when  this  fundamental  principle  of 
punishment  was  forgotten,  like  so  many  others,  as  when 
private  revenge  was  prevalent,  that  the  death  of  the 
offender  did  not  deprive  the  injured  party  of  the  right 
of  exacting  composition  and  weregeld. 

Later,  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, the  exchequer,  in  the  same  vindictive  spirit,  did 
not  hesitate  to  continue  proceedings  against  the  dead, 
by  dishonouring  their  memory,  maltreating  their  corpses, 
and  confiscating  their  goods.11 

An  exceptional  extinction  of  the  punitive  sanction  was 
the  prescription  of  the  action  when  a  certain  time  had 
elapsed  after  the  offence  was  committed.  Nowadays 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         253 

the  convenience  of  this  system  meets  with  approval,  al- 
though it  is  contrary  to  the  scientific  conception  of  the 
protection  of  society,  implying  as  it  does  that  with  the 
lapse  of  time  there  is  less  interest  to  punish;  that  the 
indirect  damage  caused  by  the  offence  vanishes;  that 
the  proofs  are  lost  and  the  guilty  party  has  sufficiently 
expiated  his  fault  by  the  anxieties  and  hardships  of 
exile.12  Whoever  reflects  upon  the  undeserved  and  in- 
jurious good  fortune  of  such  cunning  and  resourceful 
criminals  as  are  able  to  ensure  their  escape,  very 
rightly  cries  out  against  the  injustice  and  the  fallacy  of 
presuming  that  in  course  of  time  the  motives  for  pun- 
ishing grow  less,  that  the  proofs  of  guilt  are  lost,  and 
above  all  he  cries  out  against  the  ingenuous  illusion 
that  the  criminal  is  amended,  a  supposition  of  which 
his  wandering  unknown  existence  furnishes  no  proof; 
he  cries  out  at  the  contradiction  which  this  kind  of 
impunity  presents  to  the  idea  of  classifying  criminals  13 
according  to  the  degree  to  which  they  are  to  be  feared. 
Nevertheless,  not  only  is  prescription  of  the  action 
to-day  in  vigour  amongst  us,  but  even  prescription  of 
the  sentence.14  This  latter  form  of  prescription  was 
certainly  unknown  to  Roman  law,  and  is  a  mere  French 
importation.  The  prescription  of  the  action  itself  was 
only  a  late  introduction  into  Roman  law.15 

Another  exceptional  extinction  was  pardon  granted  by 
the  injured  party  for  certain  offences,  provided  that 
the  pardon  was  not  solicited  and  obtained  by  bribery : 16 
a  wise  condition  and  worthy  of  all  respect,  though  it 
has  not  been  planted  at  the  base  of  our  modern  system, 
which  legitimises  the  most  dishonourable  traffickings 
through  the  medium  of  plaints  lodged  and  pursued  with 
the  sole  object  and  sole  result  of  disgraceful  money- 
making.  By  virtue  of  this  system  long-complaisant 
husbands  who  have  tolerated  conjugal  dishonour  raise 


254        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

on  a  sudden  their  Janus-head,  simulating  anger  and 
disgust,  and  with  the  unwilling  aid  of  the  guardians  of 
the  law,  which  blesses  the  indissoluble  bond  of  matri- 
mony, extort  from  their  benevolent  betrayers  fresh 
though  involuntary  prodigalities,  or  from  their  profit- 
able wives  fresh  agreements  of  ruinous  and  unhappy 
effect  as  regards  their  children  and  their  property. 
Similarly  insolvent  debtors,  who  have  worn  out  the 
reason  and  patience  of  a  creditor,  provoke  from  him 
a  word  or  act  of  anger,  and  so  pay  their  debt  in  the 
forced  currency  of  a  complaint  to  be  withdrawn  for  a 
judicious  compensation;  sometimes  they  reverse  the  po- 
sition and  become  creditors  themselves.  So,  too,  wily 
robbers  and  embezzlers,  who  cannot  be  run  to  earth, 
owing  to  difficulties  of  proof,  pose  as  the  aggrieved  vic- 
tims of  a  false  charge,  and  entrust  the  vindication  of 
their  precious  honour  to  a  simple  action  with  the  object 
of  making  a  compromise,  which  in  itself  amounts  to  a 
new  robbery  or  malversation.  Seductive  ladies,  again, 
posing  as  seduced,  and  knowing  how  sensitive  are  the 
rank  and  family  connection  of  the  man  upon  whom  for 
the  purpose  of  the  charge  they  fasten  the  name  of 
seducer,  make  just  as  much  profit  out  of  him  with  the 
help  of  the  law. 

But  the  most  exceptional  of  all  modes  of  extinguish- 
ing the  punitive  sanction  was  that  of  the  various  forms 
of  indulgence.  In  one  of  these  we  must  find  the  cus- 
tom of  liberating  a  prisoner  on  the  occasion  of  a  public 
solemnity,  which  the  Evangelists  assert  to  have  been 
adopted  by  the  Roman  Governor  in  the  Judaic  province. 

If  we  are  to  bring  our  subject  within  the  limits  of  a 
single  modern  idea,  indulgence  must  be  divided  into 
three  distinct  institutions  possessing  the  power  either 
to  impede  or  interrupt  a  penal  action  or  else  to  annul, 
mitigate,  or  commute  the  penalty :  these  institutions  are 


THE    TRIAL   OF  JESUS         255 

amnesty,  general  pardon,  or  act  of  grace.  Amnesty, 
which  means  in  Greek  "  f orgetfulness,"  is  based  upon 
the  opportunity  for  "  forgetting "  a  certain  class  of 
punishable  deeds,  prosecuted  or  to  be  prosecuted  within 
a  certain  space  of  time,  and  it  takes  the  form  of  an  act 
of  clemency  on  the  part  of  the  head  of  the  State  ex- 
pressed in  a  decree.  It  is  in  its  essential  nature  general 
and  absolute,  so  that  a  whole  class  of  offenders  is  ex- 
empted from  punishment,  whether  the  punishment  has 
or  has  not  been  applied  to  individuals.  The  general 
pardon  is  equally  general,  but  is  not  absolute,  because 
it  does  not  cut  short  or  impede  the  penal  action,  but 
only  condones  entirely  or  commutes  in  part  the  punish- 
ment. The  act  of  grace,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  singu- 
lar and  personal  measure  condoning  wholly  or  in  part 
or  commuting  the  penalty  already  inflicted  by  way  of 
sentence  on  the  condemned  man.17 

In  the  regal  and  republican  period  of  Roman  law  we 
meet  with  a  more  or  less  clear  form  of  indulgence,  which 
was  the  restitution  of  the  condemned  (m  integrum 
restitutio  or  restitutio  damnatorum)  18  by  which,  with 
the  aid  of  a  law,  citizens  who  had  been  condemned  were 
reborn  to  civil  life.  This  restitution  was  general  when 
it  was  conceded  to  the  entire  body  of  condemned  prison- 
ers ;  special  when  it  applied  only  to  particular  sentences. 
If  it  was  in  integrum — that  is,  if  it  comprehended  the 
restitution  of  all  rights,  such  as  citizenship,  fama,  and 
dignitas — it  was  parallel  to  our  amnesty.  When  it  was 
restricted  to  certain  rights  expressed  in  the  act  of  clem- 
ency, it  was  assimilated  to  our  general  pardon.  Fa- 
mous above  all  is  the  restitutio  in  integrum  granted  to 
the  Plebs  19  on  the  occasion  of  the  first  secession.  The 
restitution  was  special  when  it  was  accorded,  in  virtue 
of  a  custom  become  law,  to  the  prisoner  who  on  his  way 
to  execution  met  by  chance  one  of  the  vestal  virgins.20 


256         THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Under  the  Empire  the  merciful  exception  to  the  penal 
sanction  assumed  two  forms.21  The  indulgence  (indul~ 
gentia  and  also  venia)  was  the  condonation  of  the  whole 
or  part  of  the  punishment ;  and  it  was  general  or  com- 
mon when  it  was  granted  (also  venia)  not  with  respect 
to  certain  persons,  but  with  regard  to  certain  penalties ; 
it  was  special  when  it  aimed  at  a  definite  person,  as 
is  the  case  with  our  modern  pardon.22  Rescission 
(abolitio),  which  was  already  employed  under  the  Re- 
public, became  of  more  frequent  application  under  the 
Empire,  and  had  the  effect  of  extinguishing  the  penal 
action  with  respect  to  a  whole  category  of  offences.23 
It  was  granted  upon  the  occasion  of  public  festivals,  as, 
for  example,  upon  the  birthdays  of  the  Emperor,  and 
upon  the  anniversaries  of  Rome ; 24  upon  occasions  of 
public  rejoicing  and  welfare,  as  upon  a  victory  or  when 
a  Roman  Emperor  visited  a  city  for  the  first  time,  or 
when  a  scion  of  the  Imperial  family  was  born ; 25  upon 
the  occasion  of  a  public  thanksgiving,  or  upon  the  cele- 
bration of  other  acts  of  divine  worship.26  Amongst 
these  latter  cases,  one  became  of  constant  and  periodi- 
cal recurrence  under  the  Christian  Emperors,  but  not 
before  367  A.D.,  this  was  the  amnesty  granted  at  Easter 
in  every  year,  just  as  amongst  the  Hebrews  in  Palestine.27 

These  varieties  of  amnesty  belonged  to  public  in  con- 
tradistinction to  private  rescission,  which  latter  was  a 
privilege  reserved  to  the  prosecutor.28  The  prosecutor, 
after  having  assumed  the  part  of  plaintiff  in  a  case, 
could  not  subsequently  withdraw  unless  he  requested  and 
obtained  leave  from  the  Prince  or  from  the  magistrate 
before  whom  the  trial  was  taking  place.29 

If  therefore  we  recapitulate  all  the  forms  of  exception 
to  the  penal  sanction  according  to  Roman  law  which 
we  have  here  indicated,  we  can  infer  what  must  have 
been  the  form  and  the  title  of  the  exception  by  which 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        257 

Pilate  proposed  to  spare  the  life  of  the  prisoner  of 
Nazareth.  It  was  not  purgation  of  the  capital  sentence, 
for  which  scourging  could  be  substituted,  because  scourg- 
ing was  not  a  punishment  either  appropriate  or  propor- 
tionate to  the  charge.  It  was  no  prescription  of  the 
penal  action,  because  nobody  had  indicated  the  date  of 
the  acts  which  were  to  be  punished,  and  because  one  of 
these  acts  had  been  consummated  during  the  previous 
night  before  the  Sanhedrin ;  it  was  not  remission  granted 
by  the  injured  party,  because  the  injured  would  have 
been  Jehovah,  who  in  His  omnipotence  was  incapable 
of  remitting  a  crime ;  it  was  no  restitution  of  condemned 
persons,  because  for  the  granting  of  this  a  law  would 
have  been  required,  and  a  governor  was  in  no  case  a 
legislator.  To  judge  from  first  appearances  it  could 
have  been  nothing  but  an  indulgence  and  a  rescission. 
But  it  is  necessary  to  know  in  whom  these  two  preroga- 
tives resided  in  order  that  by  a  final  process  of  elimina- 
tion, we  may  attain  to  a  judgment  permitting  of  no 
alternative. 

We  have  already  shown  that  restitution  was  granted 
by  means  of  a  law;  it  is  scarcely  requisite  to  add  that 
these  species  of  condonation  belonged  to  the  legislative 
power  alone.  The  restitution  which  was  granted  to  a 
condemned  prisoner  who  accidentally  met  with  a  vestal 
virgin  must  have  been  the  consequence  of  a  custom  hav- 
ing the  virtue  of  law.30  It  is  at  all  events  certain  that 
the  power  of  restitution  was  on  no  occasion  allowed  to 
the  magistrate.31 

The  same  rule  must  have  had  force  in  the  case  of 
indulgence  and  of  public  rescission;  whilst  private  re- 
scission was  regulated  according  to  a  different  standard. 
During  the  first  days  of  the  Empire,  at  which  time  the 
people  stood  for  nothing  in  the  public  life  of  the  coun- 
try, and  the  senate  was  still  the  supreme  consultative 


258        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  deliberative  body  of  the  State,  rescission  and  indul- 
gence belonged  at  first  to  the  Senate  and  Prince  to- 
gether : 32  subsequently  to  the  Prince  alone.33  This 
power  could  never  be  delegated  by  the  Prince,34  so  that 
the  governor  of  a  province  could  in  no  way  stop  the 
course  of  an  action  or  of  a  sentence  of  punishment: 
the  documentary  evidences  of  Roman  law  go  even  to 
prove  that  he  was  expressly  prohibited.35 

It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  Governor  Lucius  Pon- 
tius Pilate  was  unable  either  to  rescind  a"  sentence  which 
had  been  passed  by  the  Sanhedrin,  or  (and  this  is  the 
sole  remaining  hypothesis)  to  revoke  a  judicial  action 
which  had  taken  place  before  him  under  riotous  circum- 
stances. Neither  the  one  prerogative  nor  the  other  was 
granted  him,  either  on  the  ground  of  indulgence  or  on 
that  of  public  rescission.  There  was,  however,  one  other 
road  open  to  him,  and  which  we  must  regard  as  that 
which  he  actually  intended  to  follow :  the  road  of  private 
rescission.  This  was  in  fact  the  only  exception  to  the 
penal  sanction  which  the  prosecutor  could  request  of 
the  magistrate  pro  tribunali,  36  who  might  grant  it  if 
it  appeared  to  him  that  the  demand  was  prompted  by 
just  motives  and  was  without  an  unlawful  object.  There 
were  just  motives,  such  as  error,  overhaste,  or  over- 
heatedness  on  the  part  of  him  who  had  brought  the 
accusation,  but  from  which  he  had  afterwards  desisted.37 
Pilate  must  have  thought  that  there  was  at  least  reason 
to  suspect  an  error  on  the  part  of  Jesus'  accusers,  since 
the  haste  with  which  they  made  their  charge  a  State 
affair  was  evident,  and  even  more  evident  was  the  heat 
with  which  they  demanded  the  prisoner's  death :  he  might 
therefore  very  naturally  think  of  the  merciful  provision 
of  his  law,  for  which  he  could  never  have  imagined  a 
more  just  or  a  more  legitimate  application. 

This  is  why,  according  to  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John, 


THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS        250 

he  took  upon  himself  to  propose  to  the  people  the  lib- 
eration of  a  prisoner  according  to  all  the  rules  and 
precedents  of  a  private  rescission.  The  populace,  and 
through  and  with  it  the  Sanhedrin,  was  the  prosecutor 
of  Jesus.  The  Governor,  before  whom  the  charge  was 
necessarily  brought,  was  the  judge.  It  was  therefore 
for  the  people  to  ask  and  for  the  Governor  to  grant  a 
prisoner's  freedom.  But  Pilate,  who  was  eager  to  try 
the  fortune  of  this  final  expedient,  wished  to  discover 
whether  the  people  would  be  inclined  to  reconsider  their 
determination;  he  wished  to  draw  them  into  exercising 
the  prerogative  of  which  the  initiative  rested  entirely 
with  them.  He,  therefore,  did  not  merely  propose  the 
release  of  Jesus,  but  the  alternative  between  Jesus  and 
Barabbas. 

Even  to-day,  by  a  slight  and  praiseworthy  exercise  of 
discrimination,  the  judge  who  has  under  consideration 
a  party  dispute,  which  cannot  be  dismissed  by  him,  but 
by  the  complainant  alone,  is  wont  to  take  the  initiative 
of  pardon  by  calling  upon  and  urging  the  prosecutor 
to  abandon  his  charge,  especially  if  that  charge  compels 
the  judge  to  pass  a  sentence  of  which  he  in  any  way 
disapproves.  Had  the  right  of  pardon — which  the 
Evangelists,  well  acquainted  with  Roman  law,  referred 
to  a  usage  and  prerogative  of  the  Roman  provincial 
representative — had  the  right  of  pardon  possibly  con- 
sisted in  a  power  of  mercy  less  circumscribed  by  private 
rescission,  the  Vice-Governor  of  Judaea  would  not  have 
been  under  the  necessity  of  entirely  submitting  to  others 
a  custom  which  he  would  so  willingly  have  brought  to 
bear  himself.  With  this  compulsory  interpretation  an- 
other detail  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists  agrees — how 
at  the  feast  the  Governor  was  wont  to  release  unto  the 
multitude  one  prisoner  whom  they  would38 — because 
here  the  custom  does  not  refer  to  an  extra-legal  practice, 


260        THE    TRIAL'   OF   JESUS 

but  to  a  usage  consisting  precisely  in  the  application 
of  a  legal  enactment  upon  a  periodical  occasion  of  pub- 
lic joy  and  thanksgiving  to  God,  such  as  the  Passover 
was  to  the  Jews. 

We  have  no  intention  of  shielding  the  moral  guilt  of 
Lucius  Pontius,  weak-hearted  and  unfortunate  hunter 
after  subterfuges.  If  he  had  not  the  prerogative  of 
opposing  merciful  exceptions  to  the  accomplishment  of 
the  penal  sanction,  he  had  the  free  and  ready  means, 
nay  it  was  his  duty,  to  restore  to  Jesus  His  liberty,  to 
declare  His  innocence  and  to  pronounce  His  acquittal 
as  his  conviction  prompted  him,  and  as  the  practice  of 
the  court  over  which  he  presided  allowed.  He  was, 
however,  unwilling  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  a  re- 
lease; and  he  therefore  did  not  observe,  as  we  shall  see, 
one  of  the  rules  regulating  the  court  entrusted  to  him ; 
he  did  not  seek  or  discuss  a  single  proof;  he  did  not 
judge,  but  sought  in  the  law  and  hunted  in  its  appli- 
cations for  an  expedient  permitting  him  to  cast  the 
responsibility  of  a  release  upon  the  people.  Herein 
lies  the  cowardice  of  his  refusal  to  act. 

Barabbas  was  no  mere  rioter,  but  a  murderer  too :  and 
assuredly  there  were  among  the  multitude  that  raged 
about  the  Prsetorium  those  who  had  charged  him  with 
sedition  and  murder.  There  was,  therefore,  no  lack  of 
such  as,  under  the  accuser's  garb,  could  legitimise  in 
favour  of  Barabbas,  Jesus's  rival,  a  prerogative  which 
should  have  been  merciful,  but  which  was  only  noxious. 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  15  ;  S.  Mark  xv.  6 ;  S.  Luke  xxiii.  17 ;  S. 
John  xviii.  39. 

2  xxiii.  17. 

3  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  16.    Renan  claims  the  knowledge  that  Bar- 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         261 

abbas  or  Bar  Rabban  was  merely  his  surname,  while  his  real 
name  was  Jesus,  and  that  this  name  has  vanished  in  the  majority 
of  the  MSS.,  but  that  the  reading  is  supported  by  the  highest 
authorities  (Vie,  ch.  xxiv.  in  the  note).  Strauss  remarks:  "  Ac- 
cording to  one  reading  the  man's  complete  name  was  'Ii/o-ovs 
Bapa/?/?as,  which  fact  is  noted  only  because  Olshausen  consid- 
ers it  noteworthy.  Barabbas  signifies  '  son  of  the  father,'  and 
consequently  Olshausen  exclaims :  '  All  that  was  essential  to  the 
Redeemer  appears  ridiculous  in  the  assassin! '  and  he  deems  ap- 
plicable the  verse:  '  Ludit  in  humanis  divina  potentia  rebus.' 
We  can  see  nothing  in  Olshausen's  remark  but  a  Indus  hwnance 
impotentice  "  (Vie,  par.  131). 

4  xviii.  40. 

5  S.  Luke  xxiii.  19. 

6  A  Lapide,  h.  t.    Strauss  is  content  with  quoting  Baur  from 
memory,  "  Sur  la  signification  primitive  de  la  fete  de  Paques  " 
(Vie,  par.  131  note).     Renan  limits  himself  to  repeating  with  the 
Evangelists:    "  It  was  the  custom  that  a  prisoner  should  be  re- 
leased at  the  feast  of  the  Passover  "  (Vie,  ch.  xxiv). 

7  Maimonides,  De  regibus,  iii.  10  ;  see  chap.  xv. 

8  See  Savigny,  System  des  Rom.  Rechts ;  Arndts,  Pandette,  par.  1, 
n.  3.     On  the  other  hand  Garofalo  rightly  remarks:  "  it  is  strange 
that  while  every  portion  of  the  civil  law  of  the  Romans  is  the  object 
of  attentive  study  and  of  the  most  accurate  and  subtle  commen- 
tation, the  criminal  laws  of  that  great  people  are  neglected  and 
despised.     Nevertheless,  a  little  meditation  upon  these  would 
reveal  that  practical  common  sense  in  which  the  Romans  were 
never  wanting.    There  is  no  need  to  stop  at  the  surface  and  to 
exclaim  at  their  barbarity  because  a  great  number  of  crimes  were 
termed  delicta  privata,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  involved  only 
a  difference  of  procedure  "   (Riparazione  alle  vittime  del  diritto). 

9  "  Huic  legi  nee  obrogari  fas  est  neque  derogari  ex  hac  aliquid 
licet  neque  tota  abrogari  potest ;  nee  vero  per  Senatum  aut  per 
populum  solvi  possumus  "  (Cicero  Rep.  iii.  22,  33  ;  Ap.  Lactant. 
vi.  8). 

10  Dig.  48,  19,  33. 

11  Fertile,  Storia  del  Diritto,  v.  par.  176 ;  Florian,  Dei  reati  e  dette 
pene,  cap.  ix.     "  Non  enim  res  sunt  quse  delinquunt  sed  qui  res 
possident"    (Nov.  17,  cap.  xii.);  cf.  Nov.  134,  cap.  xiii.    The 


262        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

penal  sanction  was  not  even  extinguished  in  the  case  of  the  pris- 
oner killing  himself  during  the  trial,  suicide  being  considered  proof 
of  guilt ;  cf.  Ferrini,  77  diritto  penale  Romano,  cap.  xi.  Nowadays 
it  is  legally  held  that  the  death  of  the  condemned  extinguishes  his 
condemnation  as  well  as  any  pecuniary  penalty  which  has  not 
been  discharged,  it  being  recognized  that  the  penalty  involving 
the  patrimony  is  no  less  personal  than  the  others.  The  carrying 
*  out  of  confiscations  is,  however,  not  impeded  by  death,  confisca- 
tions in  reality  involving  things  and  not  persons  (Art.  85,  Crim. 
Code).  Art.  86  of  the  Tuscan  Penal  Code  and  Art.  104  of  the 
1854  Criminal  Code  proceeded  otherwise. 

12  Helie,  Traite  de  rinstruction  criminelle,  tome  i.  n.  1341 ;  Luc- 
chini  in  the  Rivista  penale,  xxxviii.  p.  401. 

13  Garofalo,  Criminalogia,  pt.  iii.  cap.  iii.  p.  448  et  seq.;   Ferri, 
Sociologia  crim.  p.  742  ;    Olivieri,  Appunti  al  nuove  cod.  pen.  p. 
244  ;   Zerboglio,  Delia  prescrizione  penale,  p.  129  et  seq. 

14  Arts.  91-9  Cod.  Pen. 

15  The  first  law  introducing  it  was  the  Lex  Julia  de  aduUeriis 
of  18  B.C.     It  was  only  in  the  times  of  Diocletian  and  Maximian 
that  prescription  became  the  general  rule  and  was  of  twenty  years 
at  the  most.     Cod.  9,  35,  5  ;  9,  22,  12  ;  4,  61,  2.    Dig.  29,  5, 13  ; 
48,  13,  7. 

16  Dig.  3, 2, 5. 

17  It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  repeat  the  objections  which 
have  been  offered  to  these  institutions,  all  of  which  are  equally 
arbitrary  in  foundation — objections  especially  offered  nowadays 
when  the  institutions  are  abused.     Filangieri  very  rightly  re- 
marks: "  If  the  pardon  is  just,  the  law  is  unjust;  if  the  law  is  just, 
the  pardon  is  a  violation  of  the  law:   on  the  first  supposition  we 
must  abolish  the  law,  on  the  second  the  pardon  "    (Scienza  della 
legislazione,  lib.  iii.  pt.  iv.  cap.  57). 

18  L.  24,  Dig.  Ad  leg.  Juliam  de  adult,  xlviii.  5  ;  1.  3,  par.  5,  Dig. 
De  test.  xxii.  5  ;  1.  2,  Dig.  De  senat.  i.  9  ;  1. 1,  par.  9,  Dig.  De  postul 
iii.  1.    To  this  form  some  add  the  provocatio  ad  populum  ;  but  in 
reality  this  institution  did  nothing  more  than  sanction  the  right  of 
every  condemned  man  to  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  the  magis- 
trate to  the  judgment  of  the  people.     Cf.  my  Sistema  del  diritto 
penale  Romano,  in  the  Archiv.  giurid.  vol.  xxxvi.  cap.  iv.  Bologna, 
1885  ;  Padelletti,  Storia  del  dir.  Rom.  p.  150  ;  Rocco,  Amnistia, 


THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS        263 

indulto  e  grazia,  in  Riv.  penal,  vol.  xlix.  p.  20  ;  Lucchini,  //  car  cere 
preventativo,  part  i.  cap.  i.  par.  2  ;  Landucci,  Storia  del  dir.  Rom. 
vol.  i.  pt.  iii.  par.  402  note. 

19  Livy,  iii.  54.  Cf.  for  other  restitutions,  Cicero,  Ad  Herenn. 
ii.  28  ;  Ad  Attic,  x.  4  ;  Pro  Sexto,  xxxii.  69,  xxxiii.  72  ;  In 
Pisonem,  xv.  35  ;  Aur.  Viet.  De  vir.  HI.  89  ;  Plutarch,  Ccesar, 
37  ;  Ant.  20  ;  Caesar,  De  bello  civili,  iii.  1. 

2^  Plutarch,  Numa.  And,  vice  versa,  whoever  passed  beneath 
the  litter  in  which  a  vestal  was  being  carried  incurred  the  penalty 
of  death  (Ivi.). 

21  To  the  first  of  the  emperors  was  entrusted  a  prerogative 
which  amounted  to  yet  another  exception.     This  was  the  Cal- 
culus Minervce,  which  consisted  in  a  casting  vote,  which  was  al- 
lowed to  Augustus  in  a  condemnation,  and  which  was  thus  equiv- 
alent to  a  right  of  mercy  (Dio.  Cass.  41,  19  ;  Mommsen,  Rom. 
Staatsrecht.  v.  246  ;  Padelletti,  Storia  del  diritto  Romano,  p.  479). 

22  L.  3,  par.  2,  Dig.  De  mun.  et.  honor  ;   1.  1,  2,  3,  4,  Dig.  De 
sent.  pass,  xlviii.  23  ;  1. 1,  2,  6,  Cod.  De  sent  pass.  ix.  51  ;  1.  3,  Cod. 
De  his.  qui  adscrib.  in  test.  ix.  23  ;  1.  3,  Cod.  Th.  ix.  37  ;  1.  7,  Cod. 
Th.  ix.  40.     Cf .  Landucci,  Storia  del  diritto  Rom.  par.  402,  n.  5 ; 
Carnazza  Rametta,  Studio  del  dir.  pen.  dei  Rom.  par.  gen.  cap. 
v.  p.  70.     In  the  Latin  texts  of  the  jurisconsults  we  meet  with  the 
indulgentia,  indicated  in  such  a  manner  as  to  include  the  abolitio 
and  vice  versa  ;  but  the  inversion  and  confusion  of  these  two  dis- 
tinct terms  depend  upon  the  broader  or  narrower  sense  in  which 
they  were  employed. 

23  L.  3,  4,  8,  Cod.  Th.  De  indulg.  ix.  38  ;  Paulus,  Sententioe,  lib. 
v.  tit.  17  ;  Hermann,  De  abolitionibus  criminum,  Leipzig,  1834. 

24  "  Ob  diem  in  insignem  et  publicam  congratulationem."     L. 
8,  Dig.  Ad  S.  C.  Turpillianum,  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  6,  Cod.  Deferiis,  ii.  1. 

25  "  Ob  rem  prospere  gestam."     L.  9,  10,  Dig.  h.  t.;  1.  26,  Dig. 
Ex  quibus  causis,  iv.  4  ;  1.1,  Cod.  Th.  De  indulg.  ix.  38.    Cf.  Pol- 
letto,  Historia  fori  Romani,  lib.  iv.  cap.  5  ;  Rocco,  op.  cit.  vii. 

26  "  Ob  honorem  domus  divinaj."    L.  9,  Dig.  Ad  S.  C.  Turpill. 
xlviii.  16. 

27  L.  3,  4,  8,  Cod.  Th.  De  indulg.  ix.  38. 

28  Thus  the  prosecutor,  when  once  he  had  assumed  the  office 
of  prosecution  in  a  process,  could  not  retire  without  asking  and 
obtaining  permission  from  the  Prince  or  from  the  particular  mag- 


264        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

istrate  before  whom  the  trial  was  being  conducted.  L.  3,  Cod. 
Th.  ix.  37  ;  1.  12,  Dig.  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  10,  pr.  Dig.  xlviii.  19.  Cf. 
Livy  v.  13.  The  right  was  subsequently  reserved  to  another  pros- 
ecutor of  opening  penal  proceedings  anew.  L.  7,  10,  15,  par.  6, 
Dig.  Ad.  S.  C.  Turpitt.  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  1,  Cod.  De  gen.  abol.  ix.  43  ; 
1.  1,  par.  7.  Dig.  xlviii.  19. 

29  L.  3,  Cod.  Th.  ix.  37  ;  1.  12,  Dig.  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  10.  pr.  Dig. 
xlviii.  19  ;  Livy,  v.  13.    This  was  a  means  which  was  allowed  to 
the  prosecutor  of  avoiding  the  consequence  of  the  Turpillian  sena- 
tus-consult  by  "  si  quis  ab  accusatione  citra  abolitionem  desti- 
terit  punitur."     L.  1,  par.  7,  Dig.  xlviii.  19.    The  right  was  sub- 
sequently reserved  to  another  prosecutor  of  opening  penal  pro- 
ceedings anew.    L.  7,  10, 15,  par.  6,  Dig.  Ad  S.  C.  Turpitt.  xlviii. 
16  ;  1. 1,  Cod.  De  gen.  abol.  ix.  43. 

30  Plutarch,  v.  s. 

31  L.  4,  19,  par.  11,  Dig.  De  poenis,  xlviii.  19  ;  Voet,  Comm.  ad 
Pandect,  vol.  vi.  p.  346.     Ulpian,  commenting  on  the  praetor's 
edict  deposing  from  the  power  of  postulation  anybody  who  had 
been  condemned  and  not  restored,  says  :  "  De  qua  restitutione 
praetor  loquitur  ?    Utrum  de  ea  quae  a  Senatu  vel  a  Principe  Pom- 
ponius  quaerit  et  putat  de  ea  restitutione  sensum  quam  Princeps 
vel  Senatus  indulsit,  an  autem  et  Praetor  restituere  possit,  quae- 
ritur  ?   Et  mini  videtur  talia  praetorum  decreta  non  esse  servanda  " 
(1. 1,  par.  10,  Dig.  De  post.  iii.  1). 

32  L.  12,  Dig.  Ad.  S.  C.  Turpitt.  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  5,  Dig.  De  leg. 
corn,  de  fals.  xlviii.  10. 

33  L.  2,  4,  Dig.  De  sent.  pass,  xlviii.  23  ;  1.  27,  Dig.  De  poenis, 
xlviii.  19  ;  1. 1-3,  6,  7, 10-12,  Cod.  De  sent.  pass.  ix.  51  ;  1.  7,  Cod. 
Th.  ix.  40. 

34  L.  45,  par.  1,  Dig.  De  re  jud.  xlii.  1 ;  1.  3,  Cod.  De  his  qui  sibi 
adsc.  ix.  23  ;  1.  7,  Cod.  Th.  ix.  40. 

35  "  Divi  fratres  Arruntio  Siloni  rescripserunt  non  solere  prae- 
sides  provinciarum  ea  quse  prommtiaverunt  ipsos  rescindere  .  .  . 
id  dumtaxat  a  principibus  fieri  potest."     L.  27,  Dig.  De  poenis, 
xlviii.  19,  and  again :  "  Pcenam  sua  dictam  sententia  praesidi  pro- 
vinciae  revocari  non  licet."     L.  15,  Cod.  De  pcenis,  ix.  47. 

36  L.  2,  Cod.  ix.  42.    Paul  speaks  also  of  a  person  abandoning  a 
charge  with  the  Emperor's  permission  (1.  15,  pr.  Dig.  xlviii.  16); 
but  Constantine  insists  upon  the  rule  that  "  abolitio  .  .  .  non  a 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS         265 

principe  sed  a  competenti  judice  postulari  debet  "  (1.  2,  Cod.  ix. 
42).  The  abolition  was  requested  for  each  individual  charge, 
and  for  each  accused  person  where  there  were  several  charges 
and  several  accused  persons  (I.  1,  par.  8,  Cod.  ix.  42,  1.  39,  par.  6, 
Dig.  xlviii.  5). 

37  L.  15,  pr.  Dig.  xlviii.  16  ;  1.  15,  pr.  Dig.  xlix.  14  ;  1.  2,  Cod. 
ix.  42. 

38  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  15. 


CHAPTER  XX 

How  Barabbas  was  preferred  to  Jesus — The  Message  of  the  Wife 
of  Pilate — Her  Prophetic  Dream — Pilate  insists  on  the  Al- 
ternative: Christ  or  Barabbas? — How  the  Mocking  Spirit 
of  the  Governor  makes  Jest  of  the  King  to  be  crucified,  and 
the  Servile  Character  of  the  Jews  who  invoked  the  Friend- 
ship of  the  Emperor — The  Unanimous  Cry  of  "  Crucify 
Him  " — How  not  even  an  Echo  was  heard  of  the  late  Ho- 
sannas — The  Reason  of  this  is  found  in  the  Disappointment 
of  the  People  that  looked  for  a  Miracle — How  the  Identical 
Popular  Phenomenon  was  renewed  at  Florence  with  regard 
to  Fra  Savonarola — The  Phenomenon  regarded  from  the 
Positive  Point  of  View  of  Collective  Suggestion,  and  from 
that  of  the  Disorderly  Crowd. 

"  BARABBAS,  or  Jesus  which  is  called  Christ?  " 

Such  were  the  terms  of  the  choice.  The  Governor  who 
had  laid  them  down  had  hoped  that  the  preference  of 
the  people  would  fall  upon  Christ.  And  in  order  to 
strengthen  him  in  this  hope  had  come  the  touching  mes- 
sage of  his  wife,  who  exhorted  him  not  to  mix  himself 
in  the  affairs  of  this  righteous  man,  forasmuch  as  all 
that  day  she  had  been  troubled  in  dreams  on  His 
account.1 

The  message  may  appear  strange  to  whosoever  remem- 
bers the  origin  and  gentilician  stigma  of  the  woman, 
but  it  cannot  have  been  incomprehensible  to  the  husband, 
or  to  any  one  who  thought  of  the  singular,  maybe  hys- 
terical, nature  of  Pilate's  wife,  or  to  such  as  knew  that 
she  had  turned  pious  with  leanings  towards  Judaism,  as 
is  to  be  read  in  the  apocryphal  gospel  of  Nicodemus,2 


(THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS         267 

or  to  such  as  were  willing  to  believe  that  the  dream  re- 
lated by  her  was  the  spontaneous  outcome  of  what  she 
may  have  known  of  Jesus,  His  teaching,  His  life,  and 
the  peril  which  then  hung  over  Him.3  Profane  history 
is  not  without  knowledge  of  similar  dreams,  nor  does 
it  always  reject  them  as  prophetic  signs  foretelling  some 
dread  catastrophe.  Roman  history  recounts  the  dream 
of  Caesar's  wife  on  the  night  that  preceded  her  hus- 
band's assassination. 

"  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  which  is  called  Christ?  " 

The  Governor  repeated  his  offer,  while  the  priests  and 
elders  stirred  up  the  people  to  answer  according  to  their 
will ;  and  the  people  were  willing  to  be  convinced.  Be- 
tween Jesus  and  Barabbas?  The  choice  was  not  diffi- 
cult. Let  Barabbas  go  free. 

"  What  then  shall  I  do  unto  Jesus  which  is  called 
Christ?" 

"Let  Him  be  crucified." 

Pilate  found  yet  again  in  his  mocking  spirit  the  means 
of  insisting : 

"  Shall  I  crucify  your  King?  " 

And  the  priests  and  elders,  with  their  false,  cringing 
character,  made  answer: 

"  We  have  no  King  but  Caesar." 

And  on  this  idea  they  raised  a  more  effectual  menace, 
perhaps  that  which  decided  the  cowardly  heart  of  the 
Caesarian  Procurator. 

"  If  thou  release  this  man,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend, 
for  every  one  that  maketh  himself  a  king  speaketh 
against  Caesar."  4 

"  Why,  what  evil  hath  He  done  ?  "  asked  the  Governor 
yet  again. 

"  Crucify  Him ! "  was  the  last,  unanimous,  most 
piercing  cry  of  the  people,  causing  uproar  in  court.5 
Not  a  single  discordant  voice  was  raised  amidst  the 


268        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

multitudinous  clamour;  not  a  word  of  protest  disturbed 
the  mighty  concord  of  anger  and  reviling;  not  the 
faintest  echo  of  the  late  hosannas,  which  had  wrung 
with  wonder,  fervour,  and  devotion,  and  which  had 
surrounded  and  exalted  to  the  highest  pitch  of  triumph 
the  bearer  of  good  tidings  on  His  entry  into  the  holy 
city.  Where  were  the  throngs  of  the  hopeful  and 
believing,  who  had  followed  His  beckoning  as  a  finger 
pointing  towards  the  breaking  dawn  of  truth  and 
regeneration  ?  Where  were  they,  what  thinking  and  why 
silent?  The  bands  of  the  humble  and  poor,  of  the 
afflicted  and  outcast  who  had  entrusted  to  His  consoling 
grace  the  salvation  of  soul  and  body — where  were  they, 
what  thinking  and  why  silent?  The  troops  of  women 
and  youths,  who  had  drawn  fresh  strength  from  the 
spell  of  a  glance  or  a  word  from  the  Father  of  all  that 
liveth — where  were  they,  what  thinking  and  why  silent? 
And  the  multitudes  of  disciples  and  enthusiasts  who  had 
scattered  sweet-scented  boughs  and  joyous  utterances 
along  the  road  to  Sion,  blessing  Him  that  came  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord — where  were  they,  what  thinking  and 
why  silent  ?  Not  a  remembrance,  not  a  sign,  not  a  word 
of  the  great  glory  so  lately  His. 

Jesus  was  alone. 

He  that  had  looked,  not  only  into  the  eyes  of  the  mob 
that  thronged  and  roared  about  the  Praetorium,  but 
even  into  the  hearts'  depth  of  those  that  were  silent, 
would  have  marked  therein  the  same  void,  the  same 
desertion.  Even  in  the  souls  of  the  eleven  disciples 
who  had  preserved  their  faith  to  the  Master  up  to  the 
scene  with  the  authorities  at  Gethsemane,  the  light  of 
faith  had  been  darkened  in  the  face  of  the  latest  occur- 
rences, which  seemed,  but  were  not,  failure  and  ruin. 
Although  Jesus  had  always  spoken  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  and  not  of  that  of  this  earth,  nevertheless  on 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         269 

Him  was  laid  the  burden  of  the  error  of  those  shallow 
souls  by  whom  were  applied  to  the  man,  who  was  but 
the  forerunner,  the  same  contemporary  preconception  of 
the  Hebrew  national  Messiah. 

Almost  all  His  followers,  believing  Him  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah of  the  prophecy,  expected  from  Him  the  restoration 
of  the  kingdom  of  David  with  all  its  wealth  and  all  its 
glories.  Even  the  Evangelists  in  their  accounts  dis- 
close their  supposition  of  a  Messianic  ideal  according  to 
the  prophetic  and  rabbinical  traditions  of  their  people. 
But  a  few  hours  before  the  worldly  defeat  of  the  Master 
they  were  striving  among  themselves  as  to  the  pre- 
eminence that  they  should  have  in  the  new  kingdom — 
so  much  so,  indeed,  that  they  were  rebuked  for  it  with 
serious  words.6  However,  the  followers  of  Jesus  had 
not,  it  is  true,  lost  courage  at  the  labors  and  at  the 
vexations  which  He  Himself  had  foretold  to  them;  but 
they  understood  it  all  as  something  brief  and  transitory, 
destined,  by  some  miracle  from  heaven,  to  be  followed 
by  a  new  and  a  glorious  age  on  earth.  But  when  they 
saw  Him  defenceless  and  without  miracles — above  all, 
without  miracles — fallen  into  the  power  of  the  hated  Ro- 
mans, with  the  driving  out  of  whom  the  new  kingdom 
should,  on  the  contrary,  have  begun,  nay,  on  the  point 
of  being  brought  by  them  to  execution — then  this  des- 
perate position  of  affairs  became  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemies  of  Jesus  a  fearful  argument  with  the  people, 
enabling  them  to  represent  Him  as  a  traitor  to  the  na- 
tion, as  a  man  possessed  of  the  devil  for  the  miracles 
which  He  had  worked,  and  as  an  impudent  impostor  for 
those  which  He  had  been  unable  to  accomplish.  Once 
these  notions  are  insinuated  among  even  an  applauding 
multitude,  the  hosannas  cease  and  the  mad  cry  of 
"  Crucify  Him  "  will  break  forth.  The  more  ardent 
and  universal  were  the  hosannas,  the  more  wild  and 


270        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

unanimous  will  be  the  cry  of  "  Crucify  Him."  The 
imagination  of  worldly  goods,  says  a  Catholic  critic 
with  deep  insight,  struck  the  final  blow  at  the  earthly 
prestige  of  Jesus.7  This  is  the  reason  of  the  loneliness 
to  which  He  was  abandoned  in  the  hour  of  His  peril. 

Fourteen  centuries  later,  at  the  foot  of  another  cross, 
history  recorded  a  similar  instance  of  revulsion  and 
popular  desertion.  Fra  Girolamo  Savonarola,  the  first 
to  feel  in  the  sixteenth  century  that  a  freer  and  wider 
synthesis  of  the  human  race  was  filling  men's  minds  and 
awakening  them  into  new  life,  had  grasped  in  hand  and 
raised  on  high  the  banner  of  the  New  Birth — the  pre- 
sentiment, as  it  were,  and  beginning  of  the  civilisation 
of  modern  times.  The  men  of  his  day,  urged  by  a  force 
niightier  than  their  own,  were  sailing  a  chartless  sea  in 
quest  of  a  land  unknown  but  divined.  Christopher 
Columbus  personifies  them  all.  At  the  moment  when 
Savonarola  was  being  led  to  the  stake,  the  explorer  was 
spreading  sail.  Both  were  feeling  with  their  hands  for 
a  new  world,  unable  as  yet  to  grasp  its  immensity. 

The  one  was  rewarded  with  bonds,  the  other  with  burn- 
ing. The  world — says  the  famed  historian  of  the  great 
monk — dreaded  those  men,  who  were  heroes  rather  than 
thinkers,  and  began  by  crushing  them;  afterwards  it 
worshipped  their  footsteps  and  used  them  as  the  track 
of  its  own  path.8  Determined  to  inaugurate  the  King- 
dom of  Jesus  in  his  land  and  to  replace  the  sceptre  by 
the  cross,  Fra  Girolamo  intended  to  bring  reason  and 
faith,  religion  and  liberty,  into  harmony,  and  for  that 
reason  he  set  himself  to  overthrow  every  species  of  li- 
cence and  usurpation.  His  voice  was  a  protest  of  the 
Christian  spirit  against  the  infamy  of  Alexander  VI., 
the  debasement  of  the  Italian  nation,  and  the  tyranny 
of  the  wealthy  middle  class :  three  sources  of  death,  des- 
tined to  answer  him  with  death.  Around  him  had  broken 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        271 

out  afresh  the  struggle  between  "  fat  folk "  and  the 
"  lean  "  : 9  the  latter  should  have  been,  and  were,  all 
for  the  man  who  wished  to  bring  the  republic  back  again 
to  the  forms  of  Christian  equality.  His  moving  ser- 
mons in  the  Church  of  S.  Mark  were  interrupted  by  the 
sobbing  of  the  crowd;  the  wealthy  class  had  the  drums 
beaten  to  drown  his  voice,  but  succeeded  only  in  rousing 
a  tumult;  the  excommunication  hurled  against  him  by 
the  Borgias  from  amidst  the  debaucheries  of  the  pon- 
tifical court  did  not  intimidate  even  the  most  timorous 
and  most  pious  among  his  followers.  But  the  people 
had  hope  in  the  miracles  of  the  great  monk ;  he  reasoned 
about  a  moral  wonder :  the  people  looked  for  a  physical 
miracle ;  and  to  try  him  one  of  them  laid  upon  him  the 
trial  by  fire.  Fra  Girolamo  did  not  dare  to  say  that  it 
was  a  sin  to  tempt  God;  the  multitude  felt  that  it  had 
been  duped,  thought  itself  maybe  set  up  to  ridicule,  and 
swept  in  an  hour  from  adoration  to  curses,  just  as  the 
friar  had  passed  from  inspiration  to  subtlety.  And 
when  the  people  saw,  after  this  last  blow  of  misfortune, 
the  burning  faggots  consume  the  prophet  to  the  very 
bones,  they  were  not  appeased  by  his  death,  the  truth 
of  which  brought  home  the  fearful  comedy  of  the  ordeal 
by  fire.  For  although  in  the  midst  of  the  flames  the 
victim  raised  his  hand  to  bless  them,  the  people  jeered 
and  mocked  his  martyrdom.  He  who  knows  the  details 
of  the  execution  that  took  place  on  the  Square  of  the 
Signory  on  May  23,  1498,  under  the  Lord  Otto,  cannot 
recognise  that  popular  fickleness  and  frenzy  do  not  af- 
ford us  in  this  case  a  better  example  than  that  offered 
on  the  height  of  Calvary  on  April  6,  A.D.  29,  under 
Pontius  Pilate. 

On  the  square  was  erected  the  scaffold  destined  for 
Fra  Girolamo  and  his  two  companions,  Domenico  and 
Silvestro.  At  the  extremity  of  a  raised  platform  con- 


272        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

structed  over  against  the  Palace  of  the  Pisani  was 
reared  a  huge  stake  crossed  at  the  summit  by  a  beam 
forming  a  cross.  Every  endeavour  had  been  made  to 
avoid  this  similarity  by  more  than  once  shortening  the 
stake;  but  the  unwelcome  shape  of  the  erection  upon 
Golgotha  reappeared  unchanged.  From  the  arms  of 
the  cross  hung  three  thongs  and  three  chains.  Beneath 
the  stake  was  made  ready  a  pile  of  combustible  material, 
and  a  vast  concourse  of  people,  primed  with  the  most 
inhuman  feeling,  pressed  around.  Amidst  these,  pris- 
oners who  had  been  set  free  by  the  Signory  solely  on 
account  of  the  hatred  which  they  pretended  to  bear 
against  Savonarola  and  his  followers  kept  coming  and 
going.10  Fra  Silvestro  had  made  up  his  mind  to  speak 
from  the  gibbet,  but  Fra  Girolamo  dissuaded  him  with 
a  timely  reminder.  "  I  know,"  he  said,  "  that  you  wish 
to  maintain  your  innocence  before  the  people;  I  charge 
you  to  abandon  any  such  thought  and  rather  to  follow 
the  example  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who,  even  on  the 
cross,  was  unwilling  to  speak  of  His  innocence."  As  the 
three  monks,  stripped  of  all  but  their  tunics,  with  feet 
unshod  and  arms  bound,  stepped  down  the  staircase  of 
the  palace  and  drew  near  to  the  cross,  the  most  unbridled 
rabble  overwhelmed  them  with  shameful  blasphemies,  ob- 
scene cries,  insulting  gestures.  It  fell  to  Fra  Silvestro 
to  mount  the  ladder  first.  The  executioner,  after  hav- 
ing fastened  one  of  the  three  thongs  about  his  neck,  and 
dealt  him  the  death-blow,  bound  his  writhing  limbs  with 
the  chain.  Immediately  afterwards  he  hastened  to  the 
other  end  of  the  scaffold,  and  performed  the  same  offices 
on  the  person  of  Fra  Domenico,  who  had  stepped  up 
even  more  lightly  and  fearlessly  than  the  first  victim. 
It  remained  for  Savonarola,  who  had  witnessed  the  death 
of  his  companions,  to  take  the  place  between  them  which 
had  remained  vacant. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        273 

So  lost  was  he  in  thoughts  of  another  life,  that  he 
almost  seemed  to  have  already  taken  leave  of  earth. 
But  as  the  historian  tells  us,  when  he  was  aloft  upon 
the  cross  he  could  not  refrain  from  casting  a  glance 
upon  the  multitude  below.  He  saw  that  each  one 
among  them  was  impatient  to  see  him  die.  How 
different  were  they  from  those  who  in  bygone  days 
in  the  Church  of  Santa  Maria  del  Fiore  had  hung  upon 
his  lips  in  ecstasy !  At  the  foot  of  the  cross  he  marked 
some  of  the  rabble  with  flaming  torches  in  hand  eager 
to  kindle  the  fire.  Then  on  the  instant  he  bowed  his 
head  to  the  executioner.  At  that  moment  an  awful 
silence  fell  on  every  one,  a  shudder  of  horror  seemed 
to  pass  through  the  throng.  It  seemed  as  though  the 
very  statues  that  stood  around  the  square  shivered. 
Nevertheless  a  voice  was  raised  crying,  "  Prophet,  the 
moment  is  come  to  work  a  miracle."  Each  incident  of 
that  day  seemed  destined  to  remain  stamped  for  ever 
in  human  memory  and  to  heighten  that  feeling  of  mys- 
terious awe  which  the  passing  of  the  prophet  was  to 
leave  for  ever  among  the  people  of  Florence. 

The  brutal  executioner,  thinking  to  win  favour  with 
the  excited  rabble,  began  to  act  the  buffoon  towards 
the  still  quivering  body,  and  in  so  doing  he  nearly  lost 
his  balance  and  fell.  This  loathsome  spectacle  filled  the 
hearts  of  all  present  with  disgust  and  horror;  so  much 
so  that  the  magistrates  sent  and  severely  rebuked  the 
perpetrator.  Upon  which  he  proceeded  to  make  great 
haste,  hoping  then  that  the  flames  would  begin  to  burn 
the  unhappy  friar  before  he  was  completely  dead.  But 
the  chain  fell  from  his  hand,  and  while  he  was  seeking 
to  readjust  it  Savonarola  breathed  his  last.  This  was 
at  ten  in  the  forenoon  on  May  23,  1498.  The  execu- 
tioner had  not  yet  stepped  down  the  ladder  to  light  the 
fire  before  the  flames  shot  up,  for  a  man  who  had  been 


274        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

standing  for  several  hours  with  a  burning  torch  in  his 
hand  had  immediately  kindled  the  faggots,  exclaiming: 
"  At  last  my  opportunity  is  come  to  burn  him  who  would 
have  burnt  me." 

Then  of  a  sudden  a  wind  arose  that  for  a  time  blew 
the  flames  away  from  the  three  corpses,  while  many 
pressed  back  in  terror  and  cried  loudly,  "  A  miracle !  a 
miracle ! "  But  very  soon  the  wind  dropped  and  the 
flames  again  crept  nearer  the  bodies  of  the  three  friars, 
and  again  the  throng  closed  in.  Meanwhile  the  ropes 
that  bound  the  arms  of  Savonarola  had  been  consumed. 
His  hands  moved  under  the  action  of  the  fire,  and  in 
the  eyes  of  the  faithful  it  seemed  as  if  he  were  lifting 
them,  amidst  a  cloud  of  flame,  to  bless  the  people  who 
burnt  him.  The  Piagnoni  communicated  this  vision  one 
to  another.  Many  of  them  were  so  moved  by  it  that, 
heedless  of  the  place  and  people,  they  fell  sobbing  on 
their  knees  and  adored  him  whom  they  had  already  sanc- 
tified in  their  hearts.  The  women  wept  convulsively. 
The  young  men  trembled  when  they  thought  of  the  un- 
happy pass  to  which  they  had  come;  whilst  on  one  side 
there  was  such  excess  of  grief,  on  the  other  there  was 
joy.  The  Arrabbiati  who  were  near  the  gibbet  encour- 
aged a  screaming,  capering  horde  of  children  to  pelt 
the  three  bodies  with  a  hail  of  stones.  From  time  to 
time  shreds  dropped  from  the  bodies  and  fell  into  the 
fire  beneath.  "  There  was  a  rain  of  flesh  and  blood, 
which,"  says  the  same  historian,  following  a  writer  who 
was  himself  present  at  this  painful  martyrdom,  "  in- 
creased the  cries  of  joy  on  the  one  hand  and  redoubled 
the  vain  lamentations  and  weeping  on  the  other."  11 

The  identity  between  the  passion  and  feeling  of  these 
two  crowds,  blinded  by  an  enthusiasm  converted  into 
revengeful  anger,  is  striking.  One  would  hardly  say 
that  fourteen  centuries  intervene  between  the  two  events, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        275 

and  one  might  well  imagine  that  those  who  flung  insult 
at  the  three  innocent  martyrs  were  Jews,  and  not  Floren- 
tines. The  marble  statues  in  the  Square  of  the  Signory, 
with  all  their  luxurious  splendour  of  art  and  beauty, 
with  all  their  magnificent  show  of  civilisation,  are  no 
less  cold  and  dumb  for  the  people  of  Florence,  although 
the  emotional  historian  may  speak  of  them  shuddering, 
than  were  the  arid  formless  rocks  of  Golgotha  for  the 
rabble  of  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  more  reasoning,  no 
more  humanity,  in  the  Arrabbiati  than  there  was  in  the 
Pharisees;  no  more  justice  and  liberty  in  the  Signory 
than  there  was  in  the  Sanhedrin.  Cardinal  Romolino, 
the  representative  of  the  Roman  pontificate  at  the  exe- 
cution of  Girolamo,  was  as  wicked  and  sacrilegious  as 
Caiaphas,  the  representative  of  the  pontificate  of  Jeru- 
salem at  the  martyrdom  of  Jesus.  And  what  is  even 
more  noteworthy,  at  Florence,  too,  in  1498  it  was  the 
common  expectation  of  a  visible  miracle  that  stirred  the 
multitude  with  enthusiasm  and  faith:  it  was  the  mere 
external  failure  that  turned  it  to  hatred  and  execration. 
The  people  of  Florence,  too,  after  the  death  of  their 
prophet,  rehabilitated  him  by  their  piety  and  in  their 
legends.  Scarcely  had  the  ashes  of  Savonarola  been  cast 
into  the  Arno  from  the  Ponte  Vecchio,  when  the  crowd 
began  to  believe  that  the  dust  from  his  pyre  gave  sight 
to  the  blind,  and  a  holy  woman  of  Viterbo  told  them  the 
soul  of  Fra  Hieronymus  had  been  carried  by  the  angels 
in  the  midst  of  his  disciples  to  the  heights  of  Paradise.12 
This  appropriate  historical  comparison  might  suffice 
in  itself  to  explain  the  abrupt  passage  from  the  blindest 
adoration  to  the  wildest  persecution  in  the  feelings  of 
the  people  towards  the  martyr  of  Calvary,  so  lately 
worshipped,  listened  to,  and  acclaimed  with  triumphal 
enthusiasm  by  the  people  up  to  the  very  gates  of 
Jerusalem.  But  the  new  positive  philosophy  as  applied 


276        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

to  criminal  science,  when  treating  of  the  crowd,  explains 
popular  phenomena  of  this  nature  on  the  anthropolog- 
ical lines  of  collective  suggestion,  which  is  capable  of 
driving  a  multitude  until  it  arrives  at  a  state  of  com- 
plete unconsciousness  and  irresponsibility.  It  is  shown 
that  a  crowd  is  an  aggregate  of  men  entirely  hetero- 
geneous, composed  of  individuals  of  every  age,  of  every 
sex,  of  every  class,  of  every  sect,  of  every  degree  of 
education,  and  in  the  crowd  is  active  the  sum  of  all  the 
influences  which  suggestion  is  wont  to  exercise  in  rela- 
tion to  age,  to  sex,  and  to  the  moral  and  intellectual 
conditions  of  the  various  beings  composing  that  crowd.13 
On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  observed  that  in  facts  of 
a  psychological  order  the  conjunction  of  individuals 
composing  a  crowd  never  produces  a  result  equal  to  the 
sum  of  all  of  these  separately,  and  that  in  an  aggrega- 
tion of  persons  of  sound  sense  an  assemblage  may  exist 
without  this  quality,  just  as  in  chemistry  the  union  of 
two  gases  results  in  a  liquid  and  not  in  a  gas.14 

The  human  soul,  in  fact,  is  no  mere  cypher  which  can 
be  subjected  to  the  simple  and  elementary  laws  of  the 
science  of  numbers,  but  it  is  rather  a  peculiar  entity 
obedient  to  the  most  complicated  laws  of  chemistry,  and 
which  by  its  union  with  similar  entities  gives  rise  to 
those  phenomena,  often  quite  inexplicable,  termed  com- 
binations and  fermentations.  Consequently  the  result- 
ant of  a  union  of  men  is  never  a  sum,  but  always  a 
product  of  different  individual  psychical  elements  which 
meet,  blend,  and  neutralise.15 

Solon  used  to  say  of  the  Athenians  that  each  of  them, 
considered  separately,  was  as  cunning  as  a  fox,  but  that 
united  they  were  obtuse-minded.  Latin  experience  is 
summarised  in  the  phrase,  "  Senatores  boni  viri,  senatus 
autem  mala  bestia."  "  Combine,"  says  an  observer  who 
is  frequently  acute — "  combine  twenty  or  thirty  Goethes, 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        277 


Kants,  Helmholtzes,  Shakespeares,  and  submit  the  prac- 
tical questions  of  the  day  to  their  judgment.  Their 
discussions  will  perhaps  be  different  from  those  of  an 
ordinary  assembly,  although  nobody  can  guarantee  even 
this,  but  as  far  as  their  decisions  are  concerned  it  is  quite 
certain  they  would  be  in  no  wise  different  or  better  than 
those  of  any  other  assembly  whatsoever.  And  the  rea- 
son of  this  is  that  over  and  above  the  originality  which 
makes  him  an  excellent  individual,  each  of  the  twenty 
or  thirty  chosen  members  also  possesses  that  patrimony 
of  qualities  hereditary  in  the  species  which  render  him 
similar  not  only  to  his  neighbour  in  the  assembly,  but 
also  to  all  the  6  unknown  men  in  the  street.'  "  16 

Positive  science  insists  upon  our  studying  and  defining 
a  phenomenon.  The  instinct  of  imitation,  that  species 
of  attraction  that  compels  us  to  repeat  unconsciously  the 
acts  of  which  we  are  witnesses  and  which  make  an  im- 
pression on  our  sense,  produces  moral  contagion  having 
as  its  cause  and  means  suggestion.  As  in  the  cerebral 
function  of  man  this  reflection,  as  it  were,  of  an  impulse 
received  from  without  spreads  from  cell  to  cell,  so  in  the 
vast  field  of  a  collectivity  the  communication  is  from 
person  to  person.17  In  the  midst  of  a  multitude  the  cry 
of  a  child,  the  word  of  a  speaker,  or  an  act  of  audacity 
may  carry  away  all  those  who  hear  that  cry  or  that 
word,  or  witness  that  act,  and  lead  them  like  an  un- 
reasoning flock  even  to  reprehensible  actions.  Thus  in 
a  crowd  suggestion  attains  its  maximum  of  effect,  as- 
suming epidemic  form,  because  the  limit  of  time  and 
place,  and  the  contact  of  diverse  and  dissimilar  indi- 
viduals, carry  contagion  of  the  emotions  to  its  extreme 
limit  and  increase  the  phenomena  of  suggestion  to  the 
highest  degree.  This  happens  also  because,  in  a  crowd, 
those  more  susceptible  of  suggestion  are  the  first  to  move 
and  are  bolder  than  the  rest. 


278        THE   TRIAU  OF  JESUS 

In  popular  outbursts  the  vanguard  is  generally  formed 
by  women  and  children,  either  naturally  or  artificially 
impelled  to  evil-doing ;  certainly  they  act  unconsciously. 
First  they  are  carried  away  themselves  and  subsequently 
they  carry  the  whole  multitude  with  them,  till  they 
perpetrate  the  wildest  excesses  and  vie  one  with  another 
in  devastation  and  destruction.  The  most  eloquent 
page  ever  written  concerning  the  "  unconsciousness  "  of 
a  crowd  is  penned  not  by  science,  but  by  genius,  which, 
with  the  touch  of  art,  has  stamped  on  the  human  phe- 
nomenon the  truth  which  is  arrived  at  rather  by  intuition 
than  demonstration.  Any  one  who  has  ever  taken  part 
in  a  riot,  remarks  the  genial  author,  comes  back  with 
this  question  on  his  lips,  "  What  is  it  that  has  hap- 
pened?"18 

In  the  multitude  that  thronged  beneath  the  Praetorium 
were  blended  the  most  discordant  elements  that  go  to 
make  up  a  population;  first  and  foremost  among  all 
were  such  violent,  impulsive,  fanatical,  criminaloid  types 
as  belong  to  all  ages.  In  this  particular  crisis  sectaries 
of  every  degree,  conservative  to  revolutionary,  were 
particularly  prominent  and  active.  There  were  also 
personal  motives  for  anger  and  revenge.  There  was 
the  hatred  of  the  elders  and  those  they  had  suborned; 
there  was  the  bitterness  and  wrath  of  the  simple  and 
of  those  that  had  misunderstood.  The  victim  of  such 
a  crowd  recognised,  as  He  hung  upon  the  cross,  its  un- 
conscious irresponsible  character,  even  as  positive  science 
would  to-day.  He  asked  the  Father  to  "  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 

It  was  then  inevitable,  although  unreasonable,  that 
the  crowd  should  have  wanted  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus 
and  the  freedom  of  Barabbas. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        279 

NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  19. 

2Thilo,  Cod.  Apocr.  N.  T.',  Paulus,  Exeget.  Handb.  vol.  iii. 
p.  640.  By  certain  interpreters  of  the  New  Testament  it  is 
asserted  that  Claudia  was  numbered  by  the  Greeks  among  the 
saints  under  the  name  of  Procula  or  Proscula.  But  the  facts  are 
due  to  an  apocryphal  Gospel.  Cf.  Calmet,  ad  h.  I. 

3  This  hypothesis  is  the  most  spontaneous,  and  is  also  sup- 
ported by  Paulus  and  Olshausen,  quoted  by  Strauss.     The  latter 
is,  however,  influenced  by  the  consideration  that  "throughout 
the  New  Testament  and  especially  in  the  Gospel  of  S.  Matthew 
dreams  are  considered  as  coming  from  on  high."    Therefore 
we  may  suppose  that  S.  Matthew  wished  to  make  this  dream 
also  depend  upon  the  Divine  will  (Vie,  par.  131).     But  his  dis- 
trust in  this  case,  is  to  say  the  least  of  it,  captious,  and  is  con- 
tradicted by  the  indifference  with  which  the  majority  of  ortho- 
dox interpreters  receive  this  anecdotic  incident  in  S.  Matthew's 
Gospel.     "  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  believe,"  says  one  of  them, 
"  that  these  dreams  were  sent  by  God  to  Pilate's  wife  in  order 
that  she  should  endeavour  to  restrain  her  husband  from  the 
enormity  he  was  about  to  commit.     ...     As  for  the  reasons 
which  S.  Matthew  may  have  had  for  preserving  the  memory  of 
this  incident,  none  can  really  be  said  to  appear  from  the  context." 
Curci,  II  N.  T.  etc.  i.  p.  187,  ad.  h.  I.    And  against  this,  S.  Au- 
gustine, De  tempore,   Sermo  cxxi.;  Theophylactus,  Enarr.  in 
Matth.  xxvii.  19. 

4  S.  John  xix.  12,  19. 

5  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  15  et  seq.;  S.  Mark  xv.  9  et  seq.\  S.  Luke 
xxiii.  18  et  seq. ;  S.  John  xviii.  38  et  seq. 

6  S.  Luke  xxii.  24-7. 

^  Curci,  Lezioni  esegetiche  sui  4  Evangelii,  lez,  ci.  vol.  v.  pp.  240- 
47  ;  ibid.  II  nuovo  Testamento,  vol.  i.  p.  188. 

8Villari,  La  storia  di  G.  Savonarola  e  de'  suoi  tempi,  vol.  ii. 
p.  217. 

9  "  He  was  made  away  with,  as  a  suspect  and  heretic,  by  a 
part  of  the  Florentines — viz.  by  the  Grossi  "  (the  Patricians). 


280        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Diario  Ferrarese,  Rev.  Ital.  vol.  xxiv.  p.  352.  Cf.  Edg.  Quinet, 
Les  Revolutions  d' Italic,  2nd  ed.  chap.  iii. 

10Fra  Benedetto,   Cedrus  Libani.     Cf.  Nardi,  Burlamacchi, 
Barsanti,  Pico,  quoted  by  Villari,  bk.  iv.  ch.  xi. 

11  Villari,  op.  cti.  bk.  iv.  ch.  xi.    The  writer  quoted  by  Villari 
is  Fra  Benedetto  (Cedrus  Libani). 

12  Pico  della  Mirandola  himself  imagined  that  he  had  suc- 
ceeded in  fishing  a  piece  of  Savonarola's  heart  out  of  the  Arno, 
and  declared  that  he  had  several  times  tested  its  miraculous 
virtue  in  the  cure  of  divers  maladies,  especially  in  the  casting 
out  of  evil  spirits. 

13  Ottolenghi,   La  suggestione  e  le  facolta  psichiche  occulte 
(Turin,  1900),  part  ii.  chap.  i. 

14  Ferri,  Nuovi  orizzonti,  p.  483. 

15  Sighele,  I  delitti  della  folia  (Turin,  1902),  Introduction. 
16Nordau,  Paradoxes,  chap.  ii.    The  author  remarks:  "  We 

may  say  that  all  normal  men  have  qualities  constituting  a  com- 
mon identical  value,  equal,  let  us  suppose,  to  X,  a  value  which 
in  superior  individuals  is  augmented  by  another  different  quality 
for  each  individual,  say  for  example  B,  C,  D.  With  this  premise 
it  follows  that  in  an  assemblage  composed  of  twenty  men,  all  of 
them  of  the  highest  genius,  we  shall  have  20  X,  but  only  1  B,  1  C, 
1  D;  the  20  X,  would  necessarily  outweigh  the  isolated  Bt  C,  D — 
that  is  to  say,  the  general  human  essence  would  outweigh  the 
individual  personality,  and  the  workman's  cap  would  completely 
cover  the  hat  of  the  doctor  and  the  philosopher,"  and  better  still, 
although  without  aiming  at  scientific  demonstration,  remarked 
Aristide  Gabelli:  "  It  is  said  committees,  commissions,  and  coun- 
cils— in  a  word,  the  many  who  exercise  power  together — are  a 
guarantee  against  abuse.  It  were  first  necessary  to  see  whether 
they  are  an  aid  to  use.  The  end  to  which  powers  are  conferred 
is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this :  that  they  should  be  employed ;  when 
the  guarantees  are  such  as  to  impede  their  use,  the  conferring 
of  them  becomes  useless.  .  .  .  If  it  is  difficult  to  find  genius 
in  all,  it  is  yet  more  difficult  to  find  resolution  and  steadfastness ; 
as  there  is  no  personal  responsibility,  every  one  who  can  seeks  to 
protect  himself  .  .  .  the  forces  of  men  united  with  one  an- 
other and  do  not  form  a  sum.  So  true  is  this  that  very  frequently 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS        281 

a  mediocre  matter  issues  from  an  assembly  every  member  of 
which  might,  individually,  have  settled  the  matter  much  more 
satisfactorily.  *  Men,'  said  Galileo,  '  are  not  like  horses  har- 
nessed to  a  cart,  that  all  draw  together,  but  like  separate  horses 
all  racing,  and  whereof  one  wins  the  prize  "  (L'istruziane  in 
Italia,  Bologna,  Zanichelli,  1891,  part  i.  pp.  9,  257). 

17  Cf .  Taine,  Ribot,  Espinas,  Sergi,  quoted  by  Sighele,  op.  eit. 
chap.  i. 

18  Manzoni,  /  promessi  sposi,  chap.  xii. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

Pilate  washes  his  Hands — Meaning  of  this  Judicial  Usage — 
The  Crowd  insists  Anew — The  Last  Stand  of  the  Governor 
— Ecce  Homo — Jesus  handed  over  to  the  Priest — This 
Handing-Over  was  the  Sole  Form  of  Condemnation — The 
Responsibility  for  the  Death  of  Jesus  falls  upon  the  Gov- 
ernor— The  Roman  Soldiers  come  at  this  Point  upon  the 
Scene  for  the  First  Time — The  Scourging  from  a  Juridical 
Point  of  View — The  Prisoner  travestied — The  Crown  of 
Thorns — The  Order  of  Procedure  hi  Roman  Trials — Jesus' 
Trial  does  not  correspond  to  any  Normal  Form  of  Proceed- 
ing: It  was  a  Political  Murder. 

BUT  there  was  nothing  whatever  which  compelled  Pilate 
to  bow  to  the  will  of  an  unconscious  mob. 

The  Romans,  whose  procurator  was,  in  duty  bound 
to  embody  the  very  soul  of  justice,  set  before  themselves 
so  high  an  ideal  of  the  judicial  authority,  that  it  was 
impossible  for  them  to  tolerate  its  being  overridden  or 
interfered  with  by  the  populace.  It  is  set  forth  later 
in  the  laws  of  Justinian  how,  on  the  occasion  of  a 
popular  uproar,  the  Emperors  Diocletian  and  Maximian 
published  a  warning  that  "  the  vain  clamours  of  the 
people  are  not  to  be  heeded,  seeing  that  it  is  in  no  wise 
necessary  to  pay  any  attention  to  the  cries  of  those 
desiring  the  acquittal  of  the  guilty  or  the  condemnation 
of  the  innocent."  1 

The  procurator  had  within  his  reach  the  most  ex- 
peditious means  of  escaping  from  his  difficulty.  It  was 
not  for  him  to  enter  into  discussions  or  to  attempt  to 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        283 

parley  with  the  crowd.  It  was  not  for  him  to  rouse 
suggestion  by  proposing  the  free  pardon  of  one  of  two 
prisoners.  His  duty  as  judge  and  arbiter  of  the  accusa- 
tion was  to  freely  exercise  his  power.  It  was  for  him 
to  determine  upon  a  sentence,  and  not  upon  the  sur- 
render of  a  prisoner.  In  acting  otherwise,  in  renounc- 
ing his  judicial  power,  in  exciting  the  passions  of  the 
multitude,  lies  the  whole  guilt  and  cowardice  of  his  re- 
fusal to  act. 

Meanwhile,  seeing  that  nothing  availed,  and  that  the 
tumult  was  overleaping  all  barriers,  he  had  water 
brought,  and  washed  his  hands  in  the  presence  of  the 
people,  saying,  "  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this 
righteous  man.  See  ye  to  it."  2  But  all  the  waters  of 
the  sea  had  not  sufficed  to  wash  his  hands  clean  from 
the  stain  of  blood,  nay,  rather  the  sea  itself  had  been 
incarnadined. 

To  wash  one's  hands  in  order  to  attest  one's  innocence 
of  murder  was  a  Jewish  custom.3  It  is  on  this  fact  that 
Strauss  took  his  stand  in  endeavouring  to  prove  that 
this  detail  was  invented  by  somebody  in  whose  interest 
it  was  to  better  bring  out  the  innocence  of  Jesus,  i.e.  by 
the  compiler  of  the  Gospel  attributed  to  S.  Matthew.4 
But  in  reality  it  is  impossible  to  admit  that  any  such 
necessity  existed  for  giving  importance  to  a  particular 
which  becomes  superfluous  in  the  face  of  the  number- 
less quite  open  affirmations  of  innocence  ascribed  to 
the  Governor.  There  is  no  need  to  forget  that  at  this 
moment  the  roar  of  the  populace  had  attained  an  acute 
stage.  S.  Luke  says  that  the  Jews  "  were  instant  with 
loud  voices  asking  that  He  might  be  crucified,  and  their 
voices  prevailed."  5  According  to  S.  Matthew  a  veri- 
table "  tumult  was  arising."  6  The  Governor  set  great 
importance,  as  he  found  it  impossible  to  be  just,  upon 
being  quite  clear  in  what  he  had  to  say.  But  it  was 


284        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

difficult  for  him  to  make  his  words  heard.  Moreover, 
many  languages  were  spoken  by  the  multitude.  So 
true  was  this  that  Pilate  himself  ordered  the  super- 
scription, later  on  affixed  to  the  cross,  to  be  drawn  up 
in  three  languages,  to  the  end  that  it  might  be  read 
by  the  many.7  One  can  therefore  well  understand  that 
he  should  have  had  recourse  to  a  symbolical  mode  of 
expression  in  order  to  make  himself  understood  by  a 
vociferous  crowd,  the  greater  part  of  which  was  familiar 
with  this  outward  sign. 

According  to  the  convenient  conception  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, this  abdication  of  duty,  thus  expressed,  might 
apply  to  the  initiative  and  exaction  of  the  sacrifice  of 
which  the  Jews  were  certainly  guilty,  but  it  cannot  free 
him  from  the  higher  and  ultimate  responsibility  of  in- 
justice, which  falls  entirely  upon  him. 

To  the  words  accompanying  the  act  of  ablution  the 
crowd  made  answer : 

"  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children."  8 

According  to  the  fourth  Evangelist  the  Governor  had 
recourse  to  one  last  expedient.  After  having  Jesus 
scourged,  a  course  which  he  had  already  vainly  pro- 
posed as  an  adequate  punishment,  he  showed  Him  to 
the  crowd  from  the  tribune,  endeavouring  by  this 
spectacle  to  excite  their  pity.  The  Nazarene  had  His 
head  surrounded  with  a  crown  of  thorns.  He  wore  a 
purple  cloak  and  bore  on  His  person  the  marks  of  the 
injuries  and  violence  which  had  just  been  inflicted  upon 
him  by  the  soldiers  of  the  Praetorium  in  the  course  of 
flagellation.  Pilate  stooped  over  the  rail  of  the  bema, 
and  stretching  his  arm  towards  the  innocent  prisoner, 
cried,  as  if  in  sarcastic  epilogue  to  the  events  of  the 
morning : 

"  Behold  the  man." 

But  his  solemn  sweeping  gesture  bore  no  good  fruit. 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        285 

At  the  sight  of  the  innocent  victim,  and  at  the  words 
of  the  Governor,  all  the  hatred  seething  in  the  hearts 
of  the  priests  boiled  over,  and  they  burst  out  louder 
and  louder : 

"  Crucify  Him.     Crucify  Him." 

Pilate  once  more  fell  back  on  irony.  Just  as  in  the 
beginning  he  had  proposed  to  them  to  judge  their 
prisoner  according  to  their  own  law,  so  now,  in  the 
same  spirit,  he  said: 

"  Take  Him  yourselves  and  crucify  Him ;  for  I  find 
no  crime  in  Him." 

This  time  the  Jews  were  ready  to  take  him  at 
his  word.  Instead  of  replying,  as  at  first,  that  it  was 
no  longer  given  them  to  condemn  to  death,  they 
answered : 

"  We  have  a  law,  and  by  that  law  He  ought  to  die, 
because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God."  9 

It  was  equivalent  to  saying,  If  we  are  unable  to  judge 
Him  legally,  we  will  put  Him  to  death  as  our  law 
demands. 

This  alone  can  have  been  the  meaning  of  their  answer. 
Certainly  they  could  not  have  claimed  that  a  Governor 
should  apply  the  Mosaic  law,  because  the  foreigner  who 
in  a  Roman  province  rendered  himself  guilty  of  a  capital 
offence  was  bound  to  be  tried  according  to  the  laws  of 
Rome.10 

It  appears  that  at  this  reply  Lucius  Pontius  became 
more  frightened,  not  to  say  alarmed.  Once  more  he 
went  into  the  Praetorium  with  Jesus  and  said : 

"Whence  art  Thou?" 

He  received  no  answer,  and  therefore  insisted : 

"  Speakest  Thou  not  unto  me?  Knowest  Thou  not 
that  I  have  power  to  release  Thee,  and  have  power 
to  crucify  Thee?" 

"  Thou   wouldst    have   no   power   against    Me,"   an- 


286        THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

swered  Jesus,  "  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above : 
therefore  he  that  delivered  Me  unto  thee  hath  greater 
sin." 

The  impatience  of  the  priests  reached  its  height.  To 
be  more  precise,  it  was  at  this  moment,  according  to  the 
fourth  Evangelist,  that  they  cried : 

"  If  thou  release  this  man,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend." 
And  also :  "  Every  one  that  maketh  himself  a  king 
speaketh  against  Caesar." 

Pilate  resisted  no  more.  For  the  last  time  he  brought 
the  prisoner  forth  and  gave  Him  into  the  hands  of 
His  accusers.  For  condemnation  he  delivered  Him  up. 
His  sentence  was  a  mere  piece  of  sarcasm. 

"  Shall  I  crucify  your  King?  "  " 

This  was  the  last  word  of  the  judge  administering 
justice  in  the  name  of  Rome,  the  mother  of  law.  Not 
one  word  more,  not  the  faintest  indication  of  the  mo- 
tives of  his  answer,  which  was  nothing  but  a  capitula- 
tion. All  that  the  Evangelists  tell  us  is: 

"  That  he  released  unto  them  Barabbas  and  delivered 
Jesus  to  be  crucified."  12 

But  not  on  this  account,  and  not  because  the  con- 
demnation passed  by  the  Governor  was  an  act  of  sur- 
render rather  than  an  act  of  seizure — not  on  this  account 
does  the  dread  responsibility  of  the  death  of  the  Naza- 
rene,  which  he  vainly  rejected,  fall  the  less  upon  him. 
The  succeeding  events  make  this  abundantly  clear. 
Vainly  did  Pilate  wash  his  hands,  vainly  did  he  deliver 
up  his  innocent  prisoner  to  foreign  accusers  instead  of 
to  his  own  officials,  vainly  from  the  very  first  did  he  say 
to  the  Jews,  "  See  ye  to  it." 

But  as  far  as  the  scourging  was  concerned,  as  far  as 
the  crown  of  thorns,  the  scoffing  sentinel  posted  to 
watch  the  execution,  the  superscription  of  his  accusation, 
the  cruel  instrument  of  the  cross  and  even  the  delivery. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        287 

of  the  body  were  concerned,  he  was  compelled  to  look 
to  it  himself. 

By  the  two  first  Synoptics  the  flagellation  is  put  down 
as  belonging  to  this  final  stage  of  the  trial  and  as  a 
preliminary  to  the  crucifixion.13  By  the  third  Evangel- 
ist it  is  put  farther  back  as  a  punishment  twice  pro- 
posed by  the  Governor  and  never  carried  out,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  crucifixion.14  The  fourth  Evangelist  makes 
it  an  offer  of  the  Governor  afterwards  carried  out,  but 
as  a  substitute  for  and  not  as  a  preliminary  to  cruci- 
fixion.15 The  divergency  is  thus  remarkable  but  not 
irreconcilable.  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  simply  assert 
that  Pilate  delivered  Jesus  up  to  be  crucified  after  caus- 
ing Him  to  be  scourged,  as  was  the  custom  before  cruci- 
fixion. S.  John  anticipates  the  flagellation  somewhat, 
giving  us  to  understand  that  Pilate  intended  it  first 
as  a  substitute  for  the  cross,  and  that  afterwards,  when 
the  Jews  insisted,  he  converted  it  into  a  preparatory 
measure.  S.  Luke  merely  restricts  himself  to  the 
reiterated  proposal  of  flagellation  as  a  punishment  com- 
plete in  itself.16  What  is  quite  certain  is  that  the  flagel- 
lation corresponded  to  the  virgis  ccedere,  which  accord- 
ing to  Roman  law  preceded  the  secwri  percutere  in  the 
generality  of  executions.17 

It  is  at  this  juncture  that  Roman  soldiers  appear 
for  the  first  time.  They  it  is  who  carry  out  the  flagel- 
lation. Afterwards  the  entire  cohort  gathered  round  the 
prisoner,  and  after  having  despoiled  Him,  clothed  Him 
£n  a  purple  chlamys.18  This  was  the  second  but  not  the 
last  travesty  to  which  the  victim  of  truth  was  subjected 
by  way  of  mockery.  Once  Herod  sent  Him  back  to 
Pilate  arrayed  in  white  apparel.19  A  second  time  Pilate 
presented  Him  to  the  Jews  dressed  in  purple,  and  it  was 
in  this  garb  that  He  was  beaten  with  rods ;  20  and  finally 
he  was  clothed  once  more  in  His  own  garments  when  He 


288        THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

was  sent  to  the  cross.21  But  this  time  when 
cloaked  in  purple  the  blasphemous  masquerade  was  com- 
plete. They  plaited  a  crown  of  thorns  and  put  it  upon 
His  head,  and  a  reed  in  His  right  hand  in  guise  of  a 
sceptre.  And  they  kneeled  down  before  Him  and  mocked 
Him,  saying,  "  Hail !  King  of  the  Jews."  And  they 
smote  His  head  with  a  reed  and  spat  upon  Him.  Then 
they  put  on  His  own  garments  again  and  led  Him  out 
to  crucify  Him.22 

And  it  was  about  midday. 

Thus  ended  the  trial  before  the  Praetorium.  But  the 
name  of  trial  is  ill-befitting  to  the  chain  of  wild,  savage, 
and  disorderly  proceedings  which  followed  one  upon 
another  from  early  morning  to  midday  on  April  7. 
Jesus  was  now  condemned.  That  He  was  tried  cannot 
be  said,  for  who  were  His  judges  and  when  did  they 
judge  Him?  Not  they  of  the  Sanhedrin,  for  they  had 
not  the  power,  nor  did  they  claim  it.  Not  by  the 
Roman  magistrate  in  the  Praatorium,  who  heard  no 
single  word  of  evidence,  sought  not  a  single  proof, 
weighed  not  a  single  pleading,  observed  not  a  single 
form.  Were  one  to  forget  the  place  of  the  proceeding — 
a  Roman  tribunal — were  one  to  forget  the  date,  some 
eight  centuries  after  the  foundation  of  the  city  of  Rome, 
that  had  no  childhood — Rome,  the  teacher  of  law  to 
civilised  mankind — one  might  imagine  that  one  was 
present  at  some  primitive  trial  taking  place  before  the 
curule  throne  of  one  of  the  first  Roman  kings  without 
the  slightest  guarantee  of  even  the  most  grotesque  ritual 
forms. 

But  at  the  time  when  these  things  took  place,  the 
law-giving  genius  of  Rome  had  reached,  in  the  organisa- 
tion of  its  criminal  tribunals,  the  highest  pinnacle  of 
civilisation.  It  is  sufficient  to  have  a  summary  notion 
of  what  Roman  criminal  trials  were,  in  order  to  strike 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS         289 

a  comparison  between  what  actually  took  place  and 
what  the  trial  before  the  Roman  Governor  on  April  7 
should  have  been. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  single  sovereign  judge,  were 
he  king  or  were  he  consul,  which  lasted,  as  it  was 
well  fitted  to  last,  through  the  two  and  a  half  centuries 
of  monarchy,  was  destined  to  come  to  an  end  in  the 
better  days  of  the  Republic.  It  yielded  to  institutions 
which  first  modified  it  in  part,  and  afterwards  sup^ 
pressed  it  in  entirety.23  A  law  proposed  in  245  by  the 
Consul  Publius  Valerius,  the  successor  of  Collatinus, 
prescribed  that  no  magistrate  should  have  power  to 
carry  out  sentence  on  a  Roman  citizen  who  had  ap- 
pealed to  the  judgment  of  the  people.  It  was  their 
famous  Lex  Valeria  (De  provocatione) ,  which  the  Ro- 
mans always  considered  as  the  palladium  of  their  civil 
and  political  liberty,  and  it  was  with  this  law  that  the 
popular  jurisdiction  of  the  coimtia  was  inaugurated.24 

It  was  natural  that  w^ien  once  the  right  of  appeal 
was  recognised,  use  should  often  be  made  of  it.  Great 
use,  indeed,  was  made  of  it,  and  it  was  to  the  en- 
deavours on  the  part  of  the  dominant  caste  to  restrain 
the  popular  right  that  other  laws  of  kindred  character 
came  as  rejoinders.  One  of  these  is  noteworthy.  In- 
stead of  punishing  its  own  violation,  it  declares  such 
an  act  to  be  improbe  factum.  It  appears  that  for  those 
times  such  a  declaration  was  sufficiently  efficacious. 
"  Qui  turn  pudor  hominum  erat."  25  But  those  that 
held  power  were  unable  long  to  tolerate  this  condition 
of  affairs,  under  which  they  constantly  saw  their  ver- 
dicts impugned  and  their  authority  invalidated.  This 
led  to  their  being  forced  to  abandon  the  post  of  judges 
and  assume  that  of  prosecutors,  taking  upon  themselves 
to  establish  those  courts  which  had  to  be  appointed 
in  the  first  and  the  last  stage  by  the  people  assembled 


' 


290        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

in  the  corrdtia.  This  is  how  an  ordinary  popular  juris- 
diction came  to  be  instituted  in  which  the  magistrate 
was  the  prosecutor  and  the  people  the  judges.26 

The  Republic  grew,  and  with  it  the  number  of  crimes, 
so  that  it  became  difficult  to  convoke  the  comitia,  and 
the  necessity  was  felt  for  a  reform  which,  when  it  was 
carried  out,  led  to  the  institution  of  permanent  tribunals 
(qucestiones  perpetuce).  In  these  the  examination  of 
certain  fixed  classes  of  prosecution  was  entrusted  to 
citizens,  chosen  annually  by  the  urban  praetor  from 
amongst  the  various  orders  of  burgesses  and  the  various 
limits  of  age.  These  tribunals  acted  under  a  praetor, 
who  constituted  and  directed  them,  and  who  was  aided 
in  his  duties  and  was  replaced  when  absent  by  a  special 
magistrate  (index  qucestionis) .  One  of  these  two,  at  the 
opening  of  any  case,  threw  the  name  of  the  citizens 
inscribed  on  white  tablets  into  an  urn  (album  iudicum), 
and  then  drew  out  from  these  a  certain  number.  Both 
prosecutor  and  defendant,  however,  were  able  to  reject 
some  of  these,  who  were  replaced  by  others  taken  anew 
from  the  urn.27 

To  fail  to  recognise  the  analogy  between  this  system 
and  that  of  our  own  popular  courts,  and  to  attribute 
the  origin  of  these  to  an  imitation  of  English  legisla- 
tion,28 is  much  the  same  as  denying  the  relationship 
of  a  flower  to  the  mother  plant  which  has  borne  it 
after  a  long  period  of  sterility.  The  example  of  the 
English  courts,  which  are  undoubtedly  most  closely 
related  to  our  own,  gave  occasion  for  the  foundation 
of  these,  but  are  not  the  original,  which  is  obviously 
Roman. 

On  the  contrary,  the  modern  popular  courts  mark 
the  resurrection  of  social  powers  and  open  a  new  path 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  people;  the  Roman  perpetual 
courts,  on  the  contrary,  were  the  last  traces  of  a  decay- 


THE   TRIAL'   OF   JESUS        291 

ing  burgess  power,  and  mark  the  close  of  the  first  cycle 
of  popular  sovereignty  deliberating  and  giving  judg- 
ments in  the  comitia.  So  long  as  dying  liberty  claimed 
its  liberties  against  rising  despotism,  the  trial  by  the 
people  was  not  abolished,  the  first  tyrants  of  the  Empire 
were  forced  to  respect  this  ancient  bulwark  of  liberty ; 
but  when  the  contrasts  between  worth  and  ambition  grew 
weak  in  the  doltishness  of  sleep  and  sensual  pleasure, 
then  was  the  last  torch  quenched  and  the  free  courts 
were  turned  thenceforth  into  something  far  different. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  imperial  despotism  consum- 
mated by  Augustus  was  the  abolition  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  comitia,  which  had  so  far  continued  to  exist  side 
by  side  with  that  of  the  permanent  tribunals,  having 
cognisance  of  eight  different  kinds  of  crime.  He  ex- 
tended this  cognisance  so  as  to  include  twelve  kinds  of 
crime,  and  transferred  the  jurisdiction  in  all  other  cases 
to  the  senate.  The  latter,  however,  as  its  nature  grad- 
ually changed  owing  to  the  new  political  constitution  of 
the  Empire,  encroached  upon  the  jurisdiction  not  prop- 
erly its  own,  and  the  permanent  tribunals  went  on  declin- 
ing stage  by  stage  until  they  finally  collapsed  in  the 
third  century  of  the  Christian  era.29 

From  that  time  forward  ordinary  jurisdiction  was 
entirely  absorbed  by  the  imperial  authorities — the  pre- 
fect of  the  city,30  of  the  watch,31  of  the  coin  distribu- 
tion,32 the  vicarius,33  the  praetor  of  the  Plebs,34  the  de- 
fender of  the  city,35  the  prefect  of  the  Praetorium,36  and, 
of  all  the  most  remarkable,  the  governor  or  proconsul 
of  the  provinces : 37  all  these  magistrates,  at  various 
epochs  and  in  various  degrees,  possessed  the  privilege 
of  administering  justice. 

Lucius  Pontius  Pilate  was,  therefore,  within  the  limits 
of  his  office,  provided  with  the  same  judicial  power 
as  the  senate,  not  only  for  this  reason,  but  also  on  ac- 


292        THE   TRIAL,   OF   JESUS 

count  of  the  historical  and  civilised  source  from  which 
his  power  derived;  it  is  evident  that  this  could  not  have 
been  construed  to  override  the  rules  assuring  to  a  capital 
trial  the  dignity  and  safeguards  proper  to  the  most 
supreme  function  of  a  decadent,  but  nevertheless  civil- 
ised, people. 

According  to  the  rules  of  procedure  in  the  comitia, 
the  magistrates  themselves  prosecuted.  The  prosecutor 
mounted  the  rostra,  and  after  having  called  the  people 
together  by  the  voice  of  a  crier,  made  declaration  that 
upon  such  and  such  a  day  and  for  such  and  such  an 
offence  he  would  accuse  such  and  such  a  citizen,  whom 
he  thereby  called  upon  to  come  forward  to  listen  to 
the  charges.  The  defendant  thereupon  either  offered 
sureties  for  his  appearance  or  was  thrown  into  prison. 
Upon  the  appointed  day  the  prosecutor  again  mounted 
the  rostra,  and  after  summoning  the  accused  by  a  her- 
ald, he  brought  evidence,  documentary  and  otherwise, 
against  him;  the  prosecution  included  three  orations, 
one  per  diem.  Those  Romans  were  worthy  forerunners 
of  our  late  Latin  lawyers.  The  prosecution  had  to 
be  confirmed  in  writing  and  was  published  in  the  Forum 
on  three  market-days.  On  the  third  day  the  prosecutor 
yielded  the  right  of  speech  to  the  defence.  The  accused 
and  his  patron  mounted  the  rostra  and  proceeded  to  dis- 
pose of  the  prosecution,  bringing  up  their  evidence, 
documentary  and  otherwise.  The  plaintiff  then  an- 
nounced the  day  on  which  he  would  repeal  the  plea, 
already  made  public.  And  upon  that  day  he  called 
upon  the  people  to  consider  it  and  give  their  votes. 
Originally  voting  was  carried  on  by  voice;  but  sub- 
sequently by  means  of  a  tablet  bearing  one  of  the  two 
letters  V.  (uti  rogas)  or  A.  (absolvo)?8 

According  to  the  procedure  in  force  in  the  permanent 
tribunals,  the  prosecutor  was  compelled  to  summon 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        293 

the  defendant  according  to  the  rules  applicable  in  a 
civil  trial.39  Upon  the  day  appointed  both  plaintiff 
and  defendant  put  in  an  appearance  before  the  judge, 
who  administered  the  oath  to  the  plaintiff  and  denounced 
the  name  of  the  accused.  The  names  of  the  two 
parties,  the  day  of  their  appearance,  the  deed  which 
gave  rise  to  the  charge,  and  the  provisions  of  the  law 
transgressed  were  all  entered  in  the  libellus  inscriptionis. 
The  magistrate  presiding  over  the  tribunal  subjected  the 
charge  to  a  preliminary  examination,  and  quashed  it 
in  any  case  where  the  libellus  was  irregular.  He  ordered 
the  prosecutor  to  provide  security  and  to  declare  anew 
that  his  denunciation  was  true  and  not  calumnious. 
The  date  of  the  trial  was  then  determined,  and  in  the 
meantime  the  defendant  discarded  his  ordinary  apparel 
and  put  on  shabby  ragged  dress,  made  preparations 
for  his  defence,  and  hunted  up  patroni.  On  the  day 
appointed  the  court  was  constituted,  the  judges  were 
elected,  the  plaintiff  produced  his  documents  and 
evidence,  the  patroni  did  likewise  and  delivered  also 
the  speech  for  the  defence.  The  judges  recorded  their 
vote  in  one  of  the  three  tablets  bearing  initials  C. 
(condemno),  A.  (absolve),  N.L.  (non  liquet).  The 
praetor  presiding  over  the  tribunal  pronounced  sentence 
in  one  of  the  three  formulae  corresponding  to  one  of 
the  three  phrases  (videtur  -fecisse-,  non  videtur;  amplius 
esse  cognoscendum).*0 

In  criminal  trials  under  the  new  law  some  of  the 
forms  of  procedure  here  described  fell  into  desuetude. 
The  principal  among  them,  however,  remained  intact, 
especially  those  having  regard  to  the  manner  of  bringing 
a  charge  and  of  maintaining  the  same  by  documentary 
and  other  evidence.41  It  is  also  certain  that  in  the  prov- 
inces the  same  order  was  observed  in  criminal  cases  as 
was  observed  in  cases  tried  at  Rome.42 


294        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

It  is  sufficient  to  compare  with  these  data  the  sense 
of  disorderly  and  riotous  occurrences  which  took  place 
before  the  Praetorium  in  order  to  be  satisfied  that  not 
one  of  the  simple  and  rational  forms  of  the  Roman 
trial  was  observed  in  condemning  a  prisoner  to  death. 
There  was  neither  inscription  nor  even  definition  of 
the  charge;  the  crime  was  not  formally  declared;  no 
appropriate  legal  enactment  was  applied;  there  was 
no  hearing  of  witnesses ;  there  was  no  proof  of  a  criminal 
act;  there  was  nothing  said  in  justification  or  explana- 
tion of  the  sentence.  There  was  in  fact  no  sentence; 
the  prisoner  was  merely  handed  over  by  a  motion  of 
the  hand  of  His  accusers,  in  open  contrast  to  the 
proclamation  of  the  judge  who  had  declared  the  inno- 
cence of  the  Accused  and  had  then  washed  his  hands  of 
the  matter. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  condemned,  but  He  was 
slain.  His  martyrdom  was  no  miscarriage  of  justice, 
it  was  a  murder. 


NOTES 

1  L.  12,  Cod.  De  pcenis,  ix.  47:  "  Vanse  voces  populi  non  sunt 
audiendae,  nee  enim  vocibus  eorum  credi  oportet  quando  aut 
noxium  crimine  absolvi  aut  innocentem  condemnari  desiderant." 

2  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  24. 

3  Deuteronomy  xxi.  6,  7.     Cf.  Sota,  8,  6.    / 

4  Vie,  par.  131. 

5  xxiii.  23. 

6  xxvii.  24. 

7  S.  John  xix.  20. 

8  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  25,  26. 

9  S.  John  xix.  1  et  seq.    The  tragic  scene  "  Ecce  Homo  "  is  the 
subject  of  the  beautiful  painting  by  Antonio  Aseri,  here  reduced 
to  form  a  frontispiece  to  this  volume  by  his  son  Francesco. 

10  L.  3,  Dig.  D.e  offieio  prcesidis,  i.  18,  3:  "  Habet  (prseses)  in- 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        295 

terdum  imperium  et  adversus  extraneos  homines  si  quid  manu 
commiserint ;  nam  et  in  mandatis  principum  est,  lit  curet  is,  qui 
provincise  prseest,  malis  hominibus  provinciam  purgare,  nee  dis- 
tinguitur  unde  sint."  Cf.  Capobianco,  //  diritto  penale  di  Roma 
(Florence,  1894),  part  ii.  cap.  i.  p.  128. 

11  S.  John  xix.  1-16. 

12  The  decisive  part  of  Pilate's  action  is  thus  textually  recorded 
by  the  four  Evangelists  : — S.  Matthew  xxvii.  26  :  "  Then  released 
he  unto  them  Barabbas,  but  Jesus  he  scourged  and  delivered  to 
be  crucified  "  ;  S.  Mark  xv.  15  :  "  And  Pilate,  wishing  to  content 
the  multitude,  released  unto  them  Barabbas  and  delivered  Jesus, 
when  he  had  scourged  Him,  to  be  crucified  ";   S.  Luke  xxiii.  24, 
25  :  "  And  Pilate  gave  sentence  that  what  he  asked  for  should  be 
done.    And  he  released  him  that  for  insurrection  and  murder  had 
been  cast  into  prison,  whom  they  asked  for ;  but  Jesus  he  delivered 
up  to  their  will  ";  S.  John  xix.  16  :    "  Then  therefore  he  delivered 
Him  unto  them  to  be  crucified." 

13  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  26  ;  S.  Mark  xv.  15. 

14  S.  Luke  xxii.  16,  22. 

15  S.  John  xix.  1. 

16  This  Evangelist  indeed  does  not  speak  of  any  scourging  at  the 
moment  when  Jesus  was  handed  over  into  the  power  of  the  Jews 
(xxiii.  25).     Cf.  Paulus,  Exeget.  Handb.  3,  6,  p.  647. 

17  Cf.  Pothier,  Pandect,  lib.  xlviii.  tit.  19,  p.  5. 

18  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  27,  28  ;  S.  Mark  xv.  16, 17. 

19  S.  Luke  xxiii.  11 :  "  Et  illusit  indutum  veste  alba  "  (Vulgate). 

20  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  28  ;  S.  Mark  xv.  17  ;  S.  John  xix.  5.    The 
fourth  Evangelist,  in  speaking  of  a  purpureum  vestimentum  (Vul- 
gate), must  refer  to  the  same  garment  alluded  to  by  S.  Matthew 
(ibid.)  as  a  chlamydem  coccineam  and  by  S.  Mark  (ibid.)  under 
the  phrase  induunt  eum  purpura.    S.  Mark  anticipates  this  second 
travesty,  which,  according  to  the  other  two  Evangelists,  took  place 
at  the  moment  of  the  scourging.     That  there  was  yet  another 
travesty  cannot  be  admitted,  despite  the  fact  that  the  garment, 
which  was  always  of  purple,  is  referred  to  as  a  chlamys  coccinea. 
The  chlamys  was  the  cloak  worn  among  the  Greeks  by  personages 
of  distinction,  and  among  the  Romans  the  garb  peculiar  to  sol- 
diers ;  it  was  reddish  or  coccinea,  a  colour  which  is  declared  by 
Pliny  (Hist.  not.  xxii.  7),  and  by  the  Scholiast  to  Juvenal  (Ad 


296        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

satir.  lib.  iii.),  equivalent  to  purple.  That  on  the  other  hand 
there  was  only  one  travesty,  that  reported  by  the  Evangelists,  re- 
sults from  the  unvarying  concomitant  circumstance  of  the  crown 
of  thorns.  S.  Luke,  who  alone  vouches  for  the  episode  of  the 
sending  to  Herod,  and  consequently  of  the  white  garment  (xxiii. 
11),  speaks  of  no  travesty  at  the  moment  when  Jesus  was  delivered 
up  to  the  Jews,  and  was  crucified  (xxiii.  25  et  seq.).  Philo  also 
notes  the  travestying  of  a  man  out  of  derision  (In  Flaccum.) 

21  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  31 ;  S.  Mark  xv.  20  ;  Wetstein,  p.  533. 

22  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  29  et  seq.;   S.  Mark  xv.  17  et  seq.;  S.  John 
xviii.  5  et  seq.     It  was  inevitable  that  there  should  arise  a  discus- 
sion as  to  the  species  of  plant  out  of  which  the  crown  was  plaited. 
The  text  says  e£  d^avSoiv  (ex  spinis) ;  but  Gretzer  (De  cruce,  lib. 
i.  11)  arrives  by  various  conjectures  at  the  conclusion  that  it  must 
have  been  of  iuncus  marinus.     Sieber  (Viaggi,  pp.  143-5)  thinks 
it  was  of  rhamnus.     Upon  this  subject,  when  treating  of  the  flagel- 
lation, Giacomo  Leopardi,  a  young  cleric  aged  fifteen,  recited  one 
of  his  disquisitions  in  the  Church  of  S.  Vito  before  the  Compagnia 
dei  NobiLi  at  Recanati  on  March  19,  1814.     This  disquisition, 
mentioned  by  Giuseppe  Cugnoni  (Opere  inedite  di  G.  Leopardi, 
Halle,  1878),  has  been  published  from  the  autograph  text  by  F. 
Ferri  Mancini  (Due  ragionamenti  inedite  di  G.  Leopardi,  Reca- 
nati, 1885),  together  with  a  kindred  dissertation  entitled  the  Cro- 
cifissione  e  morte  di  Cristo,  delivered  upon  a  similar  occasion  in 
1813.     These  are  not  the  only  juvenile  writings  of  Leopardi  with 
regard  to  Christ.     In  the  library  of  the  family  at  Recanati  are 
preserved  La  Nativita  di  Gesu,  La  Coronazione  di  Spine,  L'  Ado- 
razione  del  Bambino,  II  Viaggio  del  Redentore  al  Calvario,  La 
Morte  di  G.  C.,  II  Trionfo  della  Croce  (cf.  Cugnoni  and  Ferri,  op. 
tit.).     But  all  these  compositions  are  of  but  little  moment  and  are 
valuable  only  as  showing  the  evolution  gone  through  by  Leopardi, 
in  an  inverse  sense  to  that  gone  through  by  Manzoni,  from  belief 
to  disbelief  ;  this  evolution  must  in  his  case  have  taken  place  more 
or  less  slowly  if  the  thought  which  we  read  in  his  Zibaldone  is  true: 
"  It  is  no  sign  of  great  talent  to  always  and  at  once,  habitually, 
determine  not  to  believe  "    (ii.  50).     In  his  Zibaldone  we  come 
across  thoughts  exceedingly  hostile  to  Christianity  (cf.  i.  191,  215, 
235,  296,  345,  399,  411 ;  ii.  91,  374  ;  iii.  173, 174  ;  iv.  403  ;  v.  89, 
211 ;  vii.  153).    Labanca  believes  that  if  Leopardi  had  not  become 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         297 

a  great  poet,  he  would  have  been  a  great  historian  of  ancient  re- 
ligions and  of  early  Christian  times  ;  this  he  deduces  from  the 
writings  here  mentioned  and  from  others,  such  as  the  Vita  di  Plo- 
tino  per  Porfirio,  I  Frammenti  de'  primi  Padri  delta  Chiesa,  Gli 
Errori  popolari  degli  antichi  (Labanca,  Gesu  Cristo  nella  lette- 
ratura  contemporanea,  cap.  iv.  pp.  93,  270). 

23  Cf.  my  Sistema  del.  dir.  pen.  Rom.  in  Arch.  Giur.  Bologna, 
1885,  caps.  ii.  and  iii. 

24  L.  2,  par.  16,  Dig.  De  orig.  iur.  i.  2  ;  Cicero,  De  repub.  ii.  31; 
Livy,  x.  9. 

25  Livy,  h.  I.    This  law,  which  would  to-day  appear  the  acme 
of  ingenious  legislation,  was  proposed  by  the  Consul  Marcus 
Valerius  in  454. 

26  Cf.    my    Sistema   quoted    above ;    Laboulaye,    Flores   iur. 
ante  Justin  ;    Lucchini,  II  car  cere  preventative,  part  i.   cap.  i. 
par.  2. 

27  Cicero,  Pro  Cluentio,  54, 158  ;  Cujacius,  Observationes,  ix.  23. 
Sigonius,  De  judiciis,  ii.  4  ;   Tomasius,  Dissert,  de  orig.  process, 
inquis.  p.  30  ;   Filangieri,  Scienza  della  legislazione,  lib.  iii.  cap. 
xvi. ;   Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  xliv. ;   Bruns,  Fontes  iur. 
Rom.  antiq.  50  ;  Geib,  Criminalprozess.  413. 

28  Aignan,  Histoire  de  jurispr.  p.  80  ;    Pisanelli,  DelV  istit.  del 
giurati,  p.  102. 

29  Suetonius,  August.  11,  32  ;  Dion  Cassius,  Ivi.  40  ;  cf.  my 
Sistema,  cap.  v. 

30  L.  1,  pr.  D.  De  off.  prcef.  urb.  1, 12  ;  L.  2,  pr.  Cod.  Th.  2, 16 ; 
1. 13,  Cod.  Th.  9, 1 ;  1. 12,  Cod.  Th.  9,  40  ;  Juvenal,  Satires,  xiii. 

31  L.  3,  par.  1,  D.  De  off.  prcef.  vigil,  1, 15  ;  1. 15,  D.  De  condict. 
causa  data,  12,  4  ;  1.  56,  D.  De  furtis,  47,  2  ;  1.  2,  D.  De  effract.  47, 
18  ;  1.  un.  Cod.  De  prcef.  vig. 

32  L.  13,  D.  De  accusat.  48,  2 ;  1.  3,  par.  2,  D.  De  lege  Jul.  de 
annona,  48, 12. 

33  L.  36,  Cod.  Th.  11,  30. 

34  Nov.  xiii.  cap.  i.  par.  1. 

35  Nov.  xv.  cap.  vi.  par.  1. 

36  L.  un.  pr.  D.  De  off.  prosf.  prcst.  1,  11;  1.  3,  Cod.  De  off.  prcef. 
prost.  1,  26. 

37  L.  8,  9,  D.  De  off.  press.  1, 16  ;  1.  1,  3,  13,  21,  D.  De  off.  pa*. 
1,18. 


298        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

38  Cicero,  Pro  domo,  45  ;  1. 5,  Dig.  De  accus.  et  inscript. ;  Pothier, 
Pandect,  xlviii.  2,  36,  38. 

39  L.  3, 18,  Dig.  De  accus.  et  inscript.     Cf .  Buonamici,  La  storia 
delta  procedura  civile  Romana  (Pisa,  Nistri,  1886),  lib.  i.  pp.  261, 
268,  284,  333. 

40  L.  3,  Dig.  De  accus.  et  inscript. ;  1.  35,  par.  1,  Dig.  Ad  legem 
Juliam  de  adult. ;  1.  7,  par.  1,  Dig.  De  accus.  et  inscript. ;  1.  3,  Cod. 
De  his  qui  accus.  nan  poss.;   1.  18,  par.  9,  Dig.  De  quosst.',   1.  12, 
Dig.  De  accusat.     Exceedingly  wise  was  the  system  of  non  liquet, 
as  the  occasional  disagreement  between  jurymen  nowadays  shows. 

41  L.  7,  Dig.  De  accus.  et  inscript. 

42  V.s.    Cf .  Pothier,  Pandect,  xlviii.  2,  n.  28. 


CHAPTER   XXII 

The  Cross — The  Procession  towards  Calvary — How  the  Three 
Prisoners  carried  the  Implements  of  their  own  Punishment 
— Simon  of  Gyrene — The  Two  Thieves — The  Women  who 
followed  Jesus  and  His  Mother — Golgotha — The  Cross  as  a 
Penalty  of  Roman  and  not  of  Mosaic  Law — The  Superscrip- 
tion of  the  Offence  written  above  the  Cross — Crucifixion  of 
Jesus — The  Beverage — How  the  Garments  of  the  Executed 
passed  by  Right  of  Law  to  the  Executioners — The  break- 
ing of  the  Bones  of  the  Crucified  Prisoners — The  Last  Words 
of  Jesus — His  Death. 

THE  Path  of  Suffering  hurries  us  on  towards  the  epi- 
logue of  those  events  which  were  to  bring  the  Man  of 
Sorrows  to  His  end. 

It  was  mid-day  when  the  mixed  and  sad  procession  set 
forth  from  the  threshold  of  the  Prsetorium.  Amongst 
those  that  followed  it  were  Hebrew  priests,  citizens  from 
every  class  in  the  holy  city,  strangers  from  distant  re- 
gions, Levites  and  scribes  of  the  Temple,  guards  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  Roman  soldiers  under  the  command  of  a  cen- 
turion, and  women  of  various  ages  and  various  demean- 
our. In  contrast  to  them  all  went  three  men  of  very 
different  aspect,  bending  beneath  the  weight  of  two 
beams  fastened  together  in  the  form  of  a  fork.  Slowly 
and  silently  they  passed  out  of  the  city  by  the  gate  of 
Ephraim  in  the  direction  of  a  neighbouring  altitude, 
bare  of  trees  and  in  the  form  of  a  skull. 

When  they  had  passed  a  little  way,  the  weakest  and 
most  feeble  of  the  three  gave  way  beneath  the  crushing 


300      THE  TRIAL;  OF  JESUS 

burden  that  was  laid  upon  Him.  At  this  juncture  a 
wayfarer  from  Cyrene,  on  the  way  back  from  the  coun- 
try, fell  in  with  the  procession.  He  was  requisitioned 
by  the  soldiers  and  compelled  to  carry  the  cross  of  Him 
who  was  sinking.1  It  was  Jesus  who  had  succumbed. 
The  mournful  burden  which  had  been  laid  upon  Him 
tells  us  that  which  Pontius  Pilate  had  not  spoken,  when 
he  uttered  over  Him  the  inarticulate  command  which 
was  to  have  the  fatal  power  of  a  condemnation :  it  tells 
us  that  the  guiltless  Victim  had  been  sentenced  to  the 
extreme  penalty  of  the  cross. 

Those  who  were  condemned  to  this  punishment  were 
themselves  compelled  to  carry  the  fearful  instrument  of 
their  destruction.2  The  two  beams  of  wood  composing 
it  were  fixed  together  at  the  place  of  execution.  So 
long  as  they  were  carried  by  the  condemned  they  were 
simply  bound  together  cross-wise.  Jesus,  not  only  be- 
cause He  was  weak  and  slender,  but  also  because  He 
was  enfeebled  by  the  cruel  martyrdom  which  in  itself 
frequently  proved  fatal — by  the  flagellation  which  had 
been  spared  the  others — was  unable  to  withstand  this 
fresh  trial.  Therefore  the  Cyrenean  Simon  was  com- 
pelled to  undertake  the  bitter  toil,  which  must  have 
caused  him  deep  grief,  if  it  is  true  that,  together  with 
his  wife  and  his  sons  Rufus  and  Alexander,  he  had  be- 
come the  faithful  disciple  of  the  Nazarene.3  The  other 
prisoners  who  had  set  forth  upon  the  same  journey,  and 
who  bore  their  own  crosses  undaunted,  were  two  thieves.4 
Perhaps  the  mocking  Governor  had  assigned  these  two 
companions  in  ignominy  to  Him  who  had  been  accused 
of  proclaiming  Himself  King  of  the  Jews,  in  order  to 
insult  these  last  rather  than  Him. 

Jesus,  thus  relieved  of  the  heavy  burden,  had  to  be 
dragged  up  the  weary  ascent — it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
He  walked.  The  women  could  no  longer  contain  their 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        301 

tears,  but  beat  their  breasts  and  uttered  piercing  sobs. 
They  were  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary,  and  also  Salome, 
mother  of  S.  John  the  Evangelist,  Joanna,  the  wife  of 
Chuza,  and  others  who  from  the  beginning  had  fol- 
lowed the  steps  of  the  Nazarene  in  Galilee,  and  incom- 
parable among  them  all  for  her  boundless  grief,  sublime 
in  her  calm  and  sweet  demeanour,  the  mother  of  Jesus 
herself.5  To  these  women  tradition  adds  yet  another, 
not  mentioned  by  the  Evangelists,  but  who  has  received 
especial  reverence  in  the  memory  and  piety  of  Christian 
families.  This  is  Veronica.  As  she  saw  Jesus  pass  be- 
fore her  house,  His  brow  covered  with  dust -and  blood, 
she  hastened  after  Him  in  pity  at  the  indignities  they 
heaped  upon  Him,  and  wiped  His  suffering  countenance 
with  her  veil.  Thus,  with  Simon  of  Libya,  she  offers 
us  the  example  of  those  who  have  courage  to  show  com- 
passion and  devotion  to  those  who  are  abandoned  in  the 
hour  of  their  peril.6 

Between  mother  and  Son  there  passed  a  rapid  glance.7 
To  the  other  women  Jesus  turned,  saying : 

"  Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  Me,  but  weep 
for  yourselves,  and  for  your  children.  For,  behold,  the 
days  are  coming,  in  which  they  shall  say,  Blessed  are 
the  barren,  and  the  wombs  that  never  bare,  and  the 
breasts  that  never  gave  suck.  Then  shall  they  begin 
to  say  to  the  mountains,  Fall  on  us;  and  to  the  hills, 
Cover  us.  For  if  they  do  these  things  in  the  green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry?  "  8 

The  procession  arrived  at  the  place  of  punishment. 

This  was  the  summit  of  a  rounded  convex  hill,  like 
in  appearance  to  a  skull,  so  that  in  the  Latin  it  had 
been  called  Calvary,  and  in  the  Syro-Chaldaic  dialect 
Golgotha.9  Here  the  three  crosses  were  erected. 

This  cruel  and  terrible  contrivance,  as  it  has  been 
called  by  the  great  orator,10  was  a  form  of  punishment 


302         THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

entirely  unknown  to  Jewish  law  and  tradition.  In  the 
whole  course  of  Hebrew  history  we  only  once  meet  with 
a  cross,  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  last  Asmonean  princes, 
and  this  in  an  outburst  of  especial  hatred.11  On  the 
other  hand,  it  was  common  to  other  ancient  peoples : 
the  Egyptians,12  the  Persians,13  the  Phoenicians  and 
Carthaginians,  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans.14  These 
last,  in  Syria  especially,  employed  it  upon  a  vast  and 
most  inhuman  scale.15  Roman  law  derived  its  punish- 
ments from  private  revenge,  as  the  ground  and  measure 
of  retribution,16  and  laid  the  foundation  of  our  actual 
theory  of  punishment  in  the  two  connected  principles 
of  amendment17  and  intimidation.18  But  intimida- 
tion must  necessarily  have  the  greater  weight  as  a  re- 
pellent influence,  the  penalty  being  always  regarded  as 
opposed  to  an  attractive  influence,  such  as  the  crime  is 
in  accordance  with  every  hypothesis.  The  safeguard- 
ing of  public  order,  which  was  the  governing  idea  of 
Roman  penal  justice,19  found  its  efficacy  and  its  success 
in  the  result  which  was  yielded  by  the  balancing  of  the 
two  opposing  forces  of  attraction  and  repulsion,  and 
this  amounts  to  the  lex  talionis  (lo  contrapasso),  as 
Dante  was  told  by  his  genius ;  20  and  consequently  the 
Roman  legislator  always  aimed  at  the  exemplary  and 
terrifying  nature  of  the  punishment  as  the  means  of 
causing  greater  intimidation.  "  That  nobody  shall  ven- 
ture to  commit  a  similar  act  with  these  examples  before 
his  eyes :  "  21  so  the  legislator  remarks  in  assigning  the 
penalties,  proceeding  at  the  same  time,  as  he  himself 
says,  to  select  and  establish  the  most  terrible,  the  most 
refined,  and  the  most  exquisite.  Among  such  clearly 
ranks  the  cross  as  one  of  those  punishments  which  in- 
flict the  most  lingering  and  painful  death,  and  which 
unite  disgrace  with  cruelty. 
It  derived  its  origin  from  the  ancient  practice  of  fast- 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        303 

ening  criminals  to  a  tree,  which  was  termed  "  accursed  " 
(arbor  mfelix)22  so  that  the  term  "  cross  "  was  applied 
to  every  form  of  capital  punishment,23  and  every  male- 
factor worthy  of  death  was  called  cruciarius.2*  Occa- 
sionally these  same  trees  were  employed  in  the  construc- 
tion of  crosses.25  To  the  original  use  of  the  arbor 
mfelix  succeeded  that  of  the  furca,  which  was  also 
termed  patibulum.26  Later  on,  when  Constantine  abol- 
ished the  cross,  there  was  a  return  to  the  use  of  the 
furca27  The  penalty  of  the  cross  was  regarded  as  the 
most  serious  of  all  on  account  of  the  longer  duration 
of  the  sufferings  of  the  condemned.28  Not  merely  was 
it  attended  with  infamia,  but  it  was  considered  to  involve 
such  ignominy  that  at  first  it  was  only  inflicted  on 
slaves.29  In  later  days  Cicero  complained  that  Labienus 
had  ordered  a  cross  to  be  planted  in  the  Campus  Mar- 
tius  for  the  punishment  of  citizens,30  and  it  became,  in 
fact,  one  of  the  ordinary  penalties  of  Roman  law.31 

The  sufferings  of  the  victim  were  long  drawn  out.  For 
one,  two,  or  even  three  days,  he  was  exposed  naked  to 
the  inclemency  of  the  weather  and  the  cruelties  of  man. 
His  limbs  were  nailed  and  stretched  upon  the  wood.  The 
wounds  in  his  hands  were  torn  by  the  weight  of  his  own 
body.  His  cramped  position  caused  him  torment,  and 
as  he  hung  there  motionless,  devoured  by  fever  and 
burning  thirst,  there  was  no  respite  to  his  agony.  The 
clear  and  complete  consciousness  of  his  sufferings,  which 
passed  away  only  with  the  passing  of  life,  increased 
his  anguish. 

The  cruel  instrument  was  constructed  in  divers  fash- 
ions. Sometimes  one  beam  was  morticed  into  another 
horizontally.  A  cross  of  this  kind  was  termed  immissa 
or  capitata.  At  other  times  the  horizontal  beam  was 
fixed  to  the  extremity  of  the  vertical  one,  in  the  form 
of  a  T.  This  was  the  crux  summissa  or  commissa. 


304         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Occasionally  the  two  beams  were  let  one  into  another 
and  made  a  figure  X ;  this  cross  was  styled  decussata.  A 
single  beam  or  stake  was  sometimes  employed  alone,  and 
along  this  the  victim  was  bound  or  nailed.  His  arms 
were  drawn  up  above  his  head.  In  this  case  the  con- 
struction was  called  simplex.  The  most  common  cross 
in  use  among  the  Romans,  and  the  one  therefore  with 
which  the  name  is  directly  associated,  was  that  described 
here  first.  In  all  probability  it  was  a  cross  of  this  kind 
which  was  allotted  to  Jesus.  From  the  account  which 
we  shall  here  give  it  may  be  inferred  that  a  document 
was  affixed  above  His  head,  on  which  there  was  an  in- 
scription, repeated  three  times.32 

To  some  crosses,  about  half-way  down  the  vertical 
beam,  was  fixed  a  wooden  block  which  was  able  to  give 
support  to  the  prisoner,  whose  sufferings  were  conse- 
quently lessened  but  prolonged.33  Justin  names  this 
block  cornus,  and  Tertullian  calls  it  a  staticulwm  or 
sedilis  excessus^  This  detail  has  been  almost  con- 
stantly rejected  by  art,  and  the  experience  of  anato- 
mists does  not  insist  upon  it  as  being  absolutely  essential 
for  the  support  of  a  normal  crucified  victim,  or  for  the 
avoidance  of  the  tearing  of  the  palmary  tissue  of  the 
hands.  Certain  Latin  texts,  however,  which  describe 
how  the  condemned  were  placed  upon  the  cross,  confirm 
the  use  of  the  block.35  It  must  certainly  have  been  em- 
ployed whenever  the  victim  was  bound  to  the  cross  after 
having  been  nailed  to  it.  The  wedge-shaped  support 
which  has  been  imagined  as  placed  beneath  the  prisoner's 
feet,  is  foreign,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  to  ancient  litera- 
ture and  iconography.36 

The  cross  was  sometimes  placed  upright  after  the  con- 
demned prisoner  had  been  fixed  to  it ;  at  other  times  the 
order  of  proceeding  was  reversed.  We  are  unable  to 
say  which  method  was  followed  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  It 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        305 

is  clear  that  one  or  other  manner  mttst  have  been  selected 
in  accordance  with  the  physical  condition  of  the  victim 
and  the  dimensions  of  the  cross.  It  was  the  need  for 
making  an  example  which  determined  whether  this  in- 
strument of  exemplary  punishment  should  be  more  or 
less  lofty,  or  whether  it  should  be  erected  in  one  place 
rather  than  another.  Suetonius  informs  us  that  Galba, 
wishing  to  add  greater  infamy  to  the  punishment  of  a 
guardian  who  had  poisoned  his  ward,  had  the  cross  which 
had  already  been  assigned  him  changed  for  one  of  greater 
height,  and  that  this  new  cross  was  painted  white.37 
Cicero  and  Quintilian  assert  that  crosses  were  erected 
even  along  the  most  frequented  highways,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, along  the  Via  Pompeia,  in  order  that  many  peo- 
ple might  see  them.38  The'  Roman  laws  never  entered 
into  minute  details.  They  were  not  overcharged  with 
regulations,  appendices,  and  illustrative  additions,  as  is 
the  case  with  our  splendid  and  opulent  legislation.  It 
is  therefore  useless  to  seek  for  infinitesimal  particulars 
in  this  direction. 

The  Evangelists  do  not  furnish  us  with  the  slightest 
information  as  to  the  actual  manner  of  crucifixion  in 
the  case  of  Jesus.  They  confine  themselves  to  the  state- 
ment that  He  was  crucified  upon  Golgotha,  and  that 
subsequently  two  malefactors  were  crucified,  one  on  either 
side.39  Such  Fathers  of  the  Church,  however,  as  lived 
before  Constantine,  and  may  themselves  have  witnessed 
Roman  crucifixions,  are  urgent  in  insisting  that  the 
hands  and  feet  of  Jesus  must  have  been  nailed.40  Ortho- 
dox writers  have  subsequently  laid  much  stress  upon  de- 
fending this  detail  for  the  sole  reason  that  heterodox 
writers  have  been  equally  set  upon  denying  it.41  In  the 
piercing  of  the  hands  and  feet  the  former  noted  the 
fulfilment  of  a  Messianic  prophecy  which  the  latter  were 
anxious  to  confute.  Plautus,  who  is  unbiassed  in  the 


306        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

matter  under  dispute,  apparently  confirms  the  orthodox 
writers.42 

According  to  a  usage  which  applies  not  only  to  this, 
but  to  every  other  case  of  Roman  capital  punishment,  a 
superscription  stating  the  reason  of  His  condemnation 
was  written  at  the  summit  of  the  cross  above  the  head 
of  Jesus.43  As  a  matter  of  fact,  custom  required  that  a 
document  of  this  kind  should  be  carried  by  the  con- 
demned prisoner  himself.  Suetonius  relates  that  Calig- 
ula handed  over  to  the  executioner  a  slave  who  during 
a  banquet  had  purloined  a  silver  knife.  The  slave's 
hands  were  cut  off  and  hung  about  his  neck,  and  he  was 
led  round  all  the  tables,  while  before  him  was  carried  a 
placard  stating  his  crime.  Suetonius  also  tells  us  that 
Domitian  had  a  father  of  a  family,  who  had  spoken  of  a 
gladiator  without  due  admiration,  led  down  the  steps 
into  the  arena  and  cast  to  the  dogs,  with  the  writing,  "  A 
palm-bearer  irreverent  to  his  ruler."  44  In  the  same  way, 
Jesus  on  leaving  the  Praetorium  must  either  have  carried 
the  statement  of  his  sentence  hung  about  His  neck, 
or  this  must  have  been  borne  by  Simon  of  Cyrene  or 
some  one  else  in  the  procession.45  The  placarding  of 
the  cross  was  perhaps  meant  to  make  up  for  negligence 
in  this  respect. 

The  superscription  ran:  "JESUS  OF  NAZARETH 
KING  OF  THE  JEWS."  46  It  was  couched  in  three 
languages — Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin.47  Hebrew  was 
the  national  idiom;  Greek  was  the  universal  tongue, 
spoken  all  over  the  then  civilised  world;  Latin  was  the 
official  language  of  the  judicial  and  executive  power,  and 
was  in  this  case  employed  expressly  by  reason  of  the 
official  character  of  the  event,  and  not  in  order  to  give 
the  inscription  wider  publicity.48  Nobody  outside  the 
suite  of  the  Roman  Governor  can  have  been  acquainted 
with  Latin.  It  was  by  the  Governor  that  the  inscription 


THE   TRIAL  OF  JESUS        307 

was  dictated,  and  it  embodied  a  final  stroke  of  sarcasm 
against  the  detested  Jews.  He  harps  upon  the  constant 
theme  of  rex  vester,  which  he  had  already  employed 
when  asking  them  whether  he  must  really  crucify  their 
King.  They  understood  the  irony,  and  they  asked  the 
Governor  that  he  should  not  write  "  King  of  the  Jews," 
but  "  He  said,  « I  am  King  of  the  Jews.'  "  But  Pilate 
stood  firm  to  his  insulting  sarcasm,  and  answered  in  tones 
of  weariness  and  disdain,  "  What  I  have  written,  I  have 
written."  49 

The  sequence  of  these  last  events  again  proves  that 
the  martyrdom  of  Jesus  was,  as  of  necessity  it  must 
have  been,  a  judicial  action  exclusively  of  Roman 
authority.  Crucifixion  was  one  of  the  ornaments  and 
treasures  of  Roman  and  not  of  Mosaic  law;  to  the 
power  of  Rome  and  not  of  Judaea  belonged  the  tender 
and  merciful  executioners ;  the  superscription  recording 
the  just  and  wise  condemnation  originated  with  the 
Cassarian  procurator  and  not  with  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin. 
If  a  sentence  had  been  passed  by  the  Jews  in  the  San- 
hedrin, instead  of  a  mere  accusation,  it  would  have  had 
blasphemy,  not  sedition,  as  its  ground.  The  charge  of 
sedition  was  debated  but  finally  rejected  by  the  San- 
hedrin, which  unanimously  and  exclusively  reverted  to 
the  first  charge,  declaring  Jesus  worthy  of  death  solely 
because  He  had  blasphemed  in  proclaiming  Himself 
not  the  King  of  the  Jews — but  the  Son  of  God.  In 
this  superscription,  for  all  its  irony  and  scorn,  there 
is  obviously  contained  the  declaration  of  a  crime  of  sedi- 
tion. 

This  declaration  was  not  made  by  Pontius  Pilate,  but 
he  made  no  other.  Yet  he  delivered  Jesus  up  to  be 
crucified.  He  must,  therefore,  have  mentally  and  defi- 
nitely supposed  some  offence  as  a  foundation,  however 
unjust,  for  his  delivery  of  Jesus.  This  offence  is  pre- 


308         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

cisely  that  which  he  himself  had  fixed,  in  his  laconic  style, 
at  the  head  of  the  cross.  If,  instead  of  giving  play  to 
irony  up  to  the  very  last,  he  had  thought  out  the  motives 
of  the  delivery,  which  was  equivalent  to  a  sentence,  he 
would  have  pronounced  a  condemnation  for  sedition  or 
Use  majeste.  This  was  the  only  possible  description 
which,  according  to  the  Roman  law,  could  be  applied 
to  the  crime  of  which  Jesus  was  vociferously  accused, 
but  which  Pilate  would  not  believe.  Although  beyond 
the  confines  of  the  Empire,50  it  was  Roman  law  which 
Pilate  was  bound  to  administer,  and  necessarily  did  ad- 
minister. In  its  regard  for  the  safety  of  the  State, 
which  is  the  dominating  idea  of  the  political  constitution 
of  Rome,  the  law  was  particularly  severe  against  crimes 
of  this  character.  Every  usurpation  of  the  privileges 
pertaining  to  the  sovereign  power  was  punished  with 
death;  and  a  like  penalty  was  meted  out  to  all  actions 
imperilling  the  integrity  or  the  security  of  the  nation. 
To  the  death  penalty  was  joined  confiscation  of  goods 
and  the  condemnation  of  the  prisoner's  memory.51  Thus, 
if  it  was  desired  to  consummate  an  act  of  injustice  against 
Jesus,  it  would  not  have  been  difficult  to  cloak  it  in  legal 
form. 

Meanwhile  the  guiltless  Victim  had  been  fastened  to 
the  wood  of  the  cross  and  was  beginning  to  taste  of  all 
the  bitterness  of  martyrdom. 

It  was  customary  among  the  Jews  to  prepare  an  aro- 
matic beverage  for  the  condemned  in  order  to  alleviate 
their  suffering  and  benumb  their  intelligence.52  And 
from  the  beginning  such  comfort  was  offered  to  Jesus. 
But  He  refused  it.  According  to  one  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, it  consisted  of  wine  mixed  with  myrrh;  according 
to  another,  it  was  vinegar  and  gall.53  It  was  certainly 
not  the  Roman  executioners  who  had  recourse  to  this 
merciful  custom.  Perhaps  it  was  the  pious  women  who 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        309 

wept  near  the  cross  who  thought  of  the  act  of  pity, 
peculiar  to  their  people,  although  on  this  occasion  the 
execution  was  foreign  in  initiative  and  in  nature.  How- 
ever, from  the  mention  made  of  it  by  the  Evangelists, 
it  may  be  inferred  that  this  beverage  was  nothing  but 
the  drink  which  the  soldiers  had  with  them.  If  this  was 
the  case,  all  that  the  women  did  was  to  beg  leave  of  the 
Roman  guard  to  moisten  the  lips  of  Jesus.54 

Jesus  had  been  stripped  of  his  garments.55  The 
executioners  claimed  the  right  of  dividing  them  among 
themselves.  The  spoils  of  prisoners  condemned  to  death 
(pannicularia)56  belonged  always  to  the  executioners,  in 
virtue  of  a  right  sanctioned  by  an  explicit  provision  of 
Roman  law.  In  the  particular  case  of  Jesus,  the  clothes 
were  probably  the  taleth,  a  cloak,  a  shirt,  a  girdle,  and 
shoes.  The  men  entrusted  with  the  carrying  out  of  the 
sentence  were  four  in  number.  After  dividing  the  gar- 
ments into  a  corresponding  number  of  parts,  they  cast 
lots  for  the  possession  of  them.57  Having  done  this, 
they  took  up  their  places  close  to  the  three  crosses  in 
order  to  keep  watch. 

The  crowd  looked  on  with  that  complacent  curiosity 
with  which  a  mass  of  people  is  wont  to  contemplate  the 
most  heartrending  details  of  a  catastrophe,  be  it  a  ter- 
rible conflagration  or  an  unusual  form  of  death.  Some 
of  the  passers-by  shook  their  heads  and  railed  at  the 
one  of  the  three  dying  men  who  at  least  should  have 
excited  the  greatest  pity.  First  one  gibe  was  flung  at 
him,  and  then  another.  And  they  said: 

"  Ha !  Thou  that  destroyest  the  temple,  and  buildest 
it  in  three  days,  save  Thyself  and  come  down  from  the 
cross." 

The  priests,  elders,  and  scribes  could  find  no  happier 
sarcasm  than  that  of  the  crowd : 

"  He  saved  others ;  Himself  He  cannot  save.     Let  the 


310         THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Christ,  the  King  of  Israel,  now  come  down  from  the 
cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe." 

The  executioners  themselves,  although  they  had  little 
care  for  the  reason  of  punishment,  read  the  Latin  words 
upon  the  superscription,  and  from  the  imitative  instinct 
of  brutality  repeated: 

"  If  Thou  art  the  King  of  the  Jews,  save  Thyself." 

Even  one  of  the  two  malefactors  who  had  been  cruci- 
fied with  Him  turned  his  head  towards  Him  amidst  his 
agony,  and  said: 

"  Art  not  Thou  the  Christ?     Save  Thyself  and  us." 

A  miracle  was  what  they  wanted  and  what  they 
awaited;  a  visible,  real  miracle.  And  this,  in  the  very 
end,  is  the  explanation  of  the  delusion  and  contempt 
of  the  people.  One  man  alone — and  he  indeed  was  one 
of  the  two  sharers  in  this  infamy — had  the  wisdom  at 
all  events  in  his  utter  anguish  to  conceive  the  possibility 
of  some  intangible  miracle  not  of  this  world. 

First  he  rebuked  his  companion : 

"  Dost  thou  not  even  fear  God,  seeing  thou  art  in  the 
same  condemnation?  And  we  indeed  justly;  for  we  re- 
ceive the  due  reward  of  our  deeds:  but  this  man  hath 
done  nothing  amiss."  And  then,  turning  towards  Jesus, 
he  said: 

"  Jesus,  remember  me  when  Thou  comest  into  Thy 
Kingdom."  58 

The  sweetness,  the  serenity,  the  prayer  for  pardon  ut- 
tered to  the  Father,  must  have  touched  the  unhappy 
evil-doer;  for  Jesus  in  His  first  words  spoken  from  the 
cross  had  said: 

"  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do  "  59 — a  sublime  utterance  which  raises  the  purity  and 
the  dignity  of  the  sacrifice  far  above  the  irresponsibility 
and  brutality  of  might  taking  the  place  of  right. 

Other  words  which  He  let  fall  were  taken  up  by  the 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        311 

crowd  in  evident  derision,  although  with  pretended  un- 
derstanding. He  said: 

"  Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani?  "  These  words  were  in 
the  Aramaic  language,  spoken  by  Jesus  and  the  major- 
ity of  the  spectators.  They  meant :  "  My  God,  My  God, 
why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ?  "  60 

But  the  people  made  play  upon  the  sound  of  the  words. 
They  pretended  to  understand  that  He  called  upon  Elias, 
and  they  cried : 

"  Let  be ;  let  us  see  whether  Elias  cometh  to  take  Him 
down." 

The  fever  of  martyrdom  gave  Him  yet  other  words : 

"  I  thirst." 

But  this  time  it  was  not  the  aromatic  and  comforting 
drink  made  by  Jewish  women,  but  the  bitter  liquor  of 
the  Roman  soldiery,  that  was  given  Him  in  mockery. 
One  of  the  soldiers  dipped  a  sponge  in  a  vessel,  fixed 
it  on  the  end  of  a  reed,  and  thrust  it  towards  Jesus  who 
murmured : 

"  It  is  finished."  61 

And  what  indeed  remained  for  the  Man  of  Sorrows 
to  endure?  He  had  drunk  the  cup  of  bitterness  to  the 
dregs,  and  in  the  calm  utterance  of  His  anguish  He 
might  repeat  the  words  of  the  Psalm  foreshadowing  the 
tragedy.  Unless  indeed  in  their  relation  of  His  dying 
words  the  Evangelists  remembered  David  rather  than 
Jesus,  He  repeated  the  lines  of  the  Psalmist  almost  word 
for  word:62 

"  My  God,  my  God,  look  upon  me ;  why  hast  Thou 
forsaken  me ;  and  art  so  far  from  my  health,  and  from 
the  words  of  my  complaint? 

"  I  am  ...  a  very  scorn  of  men,  and  the  outcast 
of  the  people. 

"  All  they  that  see  me  laugh  me  to  scorn ;  they  shoot 
out  their  lips,  and  shake  their  heads. 


312        THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

"  I  am  poured  out  like  water,  and  all  my  bones  are 
out  of  joint:  my  heart  also  in  the  midst  of  my  body  is 
even  like  melting  wax. 

"  My  strength  is  dried  up  like  a  potsherd  .  .  . 
and  Thou  shalt  bring  me  into  the  dust  of  death. 

"  For  many  dogs  are  come  about  me,  and  the  council 
of  the  wicked  layeth  siege  against  me. 

"  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet ;  I  may  tell  all 
my  bones :  they  stand  staring  and  looking  upon  me. 

"  They  part  my  garments  among  them,  and  cast  lots 
upon  my  vesture. 

"  But  be  not  Thou  far  from  me,  O  Lord ;  Thou  art 
my  succour;  haste  Thee  to  help  me." 

The  Romans  were  in  the  habit  of  hastening  the  death 
of  the  crucified  by  breaking  their  legs  with  blows  from 
a  mace  or  mallet  (crurifragium).  It  is  not  quite  cer- 
tain, but  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  same  end  was 
attained  more  thoroughly  by  running  the  prisoners 
through  the  breast.63  Crucifixion  only  killed  slowly. 
The  loss  of  blood  from  the  hands  and  feet  was  very  soon 
arrested,  and  rarely  proved  fatal.  The  cause  of  death 
was  the  forced  tension  of  the  limbs,  which  produced 
rigour  of  the  whole  body,  and  led  to  a  fatal  derange- 
ment of  the  circulation.  Some  prisoners  taken  down 
from  the  cross  and  attended  to  betimes,  returned  to 
life.64  Others  remained  for  three  or  four  days  on  the 
gibbet.65  Many  of  hardy  constitution  perished  from 
hunger.66  The  coup  de  grace  was  thus  useful,  some- 
times even  necessary.  In  the  particular  case  of  the 
three  of  Golgotha,  the  Jews  had  double  reason  for  re- 
questing that  death  should  be  hastened.  In  the  first 
place,  their  custom  did  not  allow  of  a  corpse  being  left 
hanging  from  the  gallows  beyond  the  evening.67  Sec- 
ondly, the  holy  Sabbath  could  not  be  disturbed  by  such 
a  spectacle.68  On  these  accounts  they  went  and  begged 


THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS        313 

Pilate  to  give  assent  to  the  breaking  of  the  legs  of  the 
crucified.  The  soldiers  proceeded  to  carry  out  this  oper- 
ation upon  the  two  malefactors.  When  they  arrived  at 
Jesus,  He  was  already  dead.69  After  three  hours  of 
agony,  calm  and  serene  He  had  closed  His  brief  years  of 
life,  and  brought  His  task  of  untold  centuries  to  an  end. 

Mid-day  of  April  7  70  was  three  hours  past  when  Jesus 
lifted  His  thought  to  the  Father  to  commend  to  Him 
the  soul  that  was  breaking  free  from  the  martyred  body. 
And  to  this  thought  He  devoted  His  last  word. 

And  He  bowed  His  head  and  gave  up  His  Spirit.  All 
of  Him  that  was  human  was  finished. 

The  cross  of  His  martyrdom  will  stand  fixed  for  ever 
upon  the  crowning  summit  of  injustice,  cupidity,  and 
civil  falsehood,  a  symbol  of  eternal  reprobation  and  of 
regeneration  without  limit.  So  much  so,  that  in  com- 
parison with  the  imperishable  wood  of  the  cross,  fire  and 
iron  will  become  worthless  trash. 

The  world  of  His  day  was  bent  on  sights  of  wanton- 
ness and  blood  in  other  quarters.  It  marked  not  that 
which  befell  Him  in  an  unknown  corner  of  the  East; 
but  before  long  it  grew  conscious  of  a  new  law  counting 
up  the  deeds  and  destinies  of  man.  It  saw  that  truths 
drawn  from  the  fount  of  Nazareth  were  watering  the 
earth,  and  that  the  tree  which  had  borne  no  good  fruit 
was  rooted  up. 

Vainly  through  nineteen  centuries  have  panic-smitten 
legislators,  or  innovators  overbold,  striven  to  write  or  to 
invoke  a  law  which  shall  be  equal  to  that  inscribed  in 
blood  upon  the  cross.  When  the  Martyr  of  Golgotha 
gave  man  this  precept,  "  Love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself, 
and  do  not  unto  others  that  which  thou  wouldst  not 
they  should  do  unto  thee,"  He  did  not  only  point  to 
and  illumine  the  inscrutable  ways  of  Heaven,  but  He 
grasped  and  ennobled  the  most  savage  and  powerful 


314        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

law  of  earth — that  is  to  say,  selfishness — and  exalted  it 
to  a  virtue  and  indefeasible  rule  of  solidarity  and  social 
justice.  And  when  to  men  bound  together  by  the 
cords  of  such  justice,  without  limits  in  its  power  and 
its  scope,  He  announced  the  "  Kingdom  of  God  is  in 
you,"  He  founded  a  divine  kingdom  upon  earth,  which 
has  neither  sovereigns  nor  subjects,  neither  victims  nor 
rebels,  neither  barriers  nor  boundaries,  which  has  a 
single  sceptre  in  every  will  that  is  master  of  its  own 
purposes,  which  has  a  throne  in  every  soul  capable  of  its 
own  destinies;  a  kingdom  perfect  and  secure,  if  not 
happy  and  blessed ;  in  which  swords  will  be  transformed 
into  ploughshares,  and  lances  into  sickles,  and  the 
sovereignty  of  man  will  be  inaugurated,  free  and  un- 
restrainable  by  any  authority  and  any  discipline,  in 
accordance  with  the  incalculable  value  of  its  own  nature 
and  the  infinite  progress  of  its  perfection. 

Nineteen  centuries  will  not  again  go  by  before  either 
the  cross  of  Golgotha  shall  become  once  and  for  ever  the 
emblem  of  victory,  or  man,  born  to  strife,  shall  sink, 
vanquished  eternally  in  the  secular  struggle  for  his 
redemption. 


NOTES 

1  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  31  el  seq. ;  S.  Mark  xv.  20  el  seq. ;  S.  Luke 
xxiii.  25  et  seq.;  S.  John  xix.  16  et  seq. 

2  The  road  which  led  to  Calvary  was  practically  the  same 
which  goes  to-day  by  the  name  of  Via  dolorosa  (cf.  Serao,  Nel 
paese  di  Gesu,  Naples,  1902,  p.  128  et  seq.).    This  road  runs 
through  the  whole  of  the  lower  city  or  Acra,  crosses  the  Low 
Street,  which  Josephus  calls  the  Valley  of  the  Tyropeon,  and 
which  separates  Acra  from  Gareb,  and  mounts  by  a  fairly  rapid 
slope  to  the  gate  of   Ephraim   (Didon,  Jesus-Christ,  ch.  xi.). 
Plutarch,  De  sera  num.  vind.  19;  Artemidorus,  Onirocr.  cap. 
ii.  56. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        315 

3  S.  Mark  xv.  21.     This  Evangelist  alone  (but  his  text  is  per- 
haps, as  is  now-a-days  believed,  the  most  ancient  and  most  au- 
thoritative)  names  Alexander  and   Rufus  as   sons  of  Simon. 
From  the  manner  and  context  in  which  they  are  mentioned,  it 
is  argued  that  they  must  have  been  fairly  well  known  to  the 
first  Christians.     Of  a  Rufus,  perhaps  the  same,  there  is  men- 
tion in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (xvi.  13),  and  an  Alexander, 
perhaps  the  brother  of  Rufus,  is  spoken  of  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles   (xix.  33).     The  subsequent  tradition  with  regard  to 
Simon  and  his  wife  comes  only  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
(Maldonatus,  Ad.  h.  L).     Didon  follows  this  tradition,  but  at 
the  same  time  consigns  to  a  note  the  passage:  "If  a  Roman 
soldier  lay  upon  thee  some  heavier  service,  resist  not,  nor  mur- 
mur; if  thou  dost,  thou  shalt  be  beaten  "  (J.-C.  ch.  ii.).     This 
would  also  mean  that  Simon  was  to  make  virtue  of  a  necessity. 
The  ancient  geographers  (Strabo,  xvii  ;  Pliny,  Hist.  nat.  v.  5 ; 
Pomponius  Mela)  name  three  Cyrenes,  one  in  Libya,  another 
in  Palestine,  and  a  third  in  Cyprus.     It  is  generally  held  that 
Simon  belonged  to  Libya. 

4  S.   Matthew  calls  them   "  robbers  "    (Vulgate  latrones  :  i.e. 
highwaymen),  xxvii.  38.     Thus  also  S.  Mark  (xv.  22).     S.  John 
merely  mentions  "  two  others  "  (xix.  18).     S.  Luke  speaks  once 
of  "  two  other  "  (xxiii.  32),  and  once  of  "  robbers  "  (xxiii.  39). 
The  names  Gisma  and  Disma,  also  Moab  and  Zabdi,  assigned 
to  these  two  malefactors,  are  not  in  the  Gospels,  and  are  derived 
only  from  fanciful  tradition. 

5  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  55,  56,  61;  S.  Mark  xv.  40,  41,  47,  xvi.  1; 
S.  Luke  xxiii.  27,  28,  49;  xxiv.  10;  S.  John  xix.  25. 

6  Didon,  Jesus-Christy  ch.  ii. 

7  S.  John  xix.  26,  27.    The  Evangelist  mentions  here  also  the 
commendation  to  him  by  the  Master  of  His  mother. 

8  S.  Luke  xxiii.  28-31. 

9  S.  Matthew:  "  Golgotha,  that  is  to  say  the  place  of  a  skull  " 
(xxvii.  33);  also  S.  Mark   (xv.  22);  and  S.  Luke   (xxiii.  33). 
S.  John:  "  And  he  went  out     .     .     .     unto  the  place  called  the 
place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  Golgotha  "  (xix.  17). 
Cf.  Gesenius,  Lex.  etc.  p.  190.     There  are  some  who  suppose 
that  the  name  of  the  place  was  derived  from  the  use  to  which  it 
was  put,  and  from  the  skulls  and  skeletons  of  executed  prisoners 


316        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

there  to  be  seen  (Winer,  Bibl.  Realworterbuch,  art.  Golgotha  : 
Paulus  and  Fritzsche,  quoted  by  Strauss,  Vie,  par.  132).  An 
etymology  of  this  kind  appears  to  me  in  contradiction  to  the 
rigorous  care  which  the  Jews  devoted  to  the  burying  of  human 
remains,  which  were  sources  of  pollution;  so  that  such  remains 
could  hardly  have  been  visible,  as  the  commentators  quoted 
believe.  Eusebius,  Sozomenus,  and  S.  Jerome  say  that  a  temple 
to  Venus  was  built  upon  Golgotha  by  Hadrian.  For  a  modern 
guide  to  Calvary,  cf.  Serao,  Net  paese  di  Gesu  (Naples,  1902), 
p.  128  et  seq.  The  place  was  within  twenty  steps  of  the  city  wall, 
which  at  this  point  formed  a  re-entrant  angle,  and  within  this 
triangular  area  the  execution  must  have  been  carried  out.  Close 
by  passed  the  road  to  Samaria  through  the  midst  of  olive  plan- 
tations, among  which  the  rich  families  had  their  tombs  exca- 
vated. 

10  Cicero,  Verr.  v.  64:  "  Crudelissimum  tetemmumque." 

11  Josephus,  De  bello  judaico,  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  n.  6.    The  deed 
is  attributed  to  Alexander,  one  of  the  Asmoneans,  who  perhaps 
crucified    eight    hundred    prisoners.     Eight    hundred    appears 
really  too  many.    And  so  must  have  thought  Josephus,  who 
guards  his  statement  with  a  "  perhaps." 

12  Genesis  xl.  19:  "Pharaoh  shall  lift  up  thy  head  from  off 
thee,  and  shall  hang  thee  on  a  tree,  and  the  birds  shall  eat  thy 
flesh  from  off  thee."     As  is  clear  from  this  text,  crucifixion  must 
in  this  case  have  been  a  posthumous  punishment  of  the  corpses 
of  prisoners  who  had  already  been  beheaded,  and  not  a  mode 
of  death.     Cf.  Jerem.  Thr.  v.  12;  1  Kings  xxxi.  10. 

13  Esther  vii.   10 :  "  So  they  hanged  Haman  on  the  gallows 
that  he  had  prepared  for  Mordecai."     Here  the  cross  is  a  mode 
of  execution  by  itself.     And  that  the  hanging  prepared  by  Haman 
for  Mordecai  and  applied  by  Mordecai  to  Haman  was  cruci- 
fixion proper,  follows  from  the  succeeding  passage  in  the  same 
book  (viii.  7). 

14  Plautus,  Mostellaria,  ii.  1, 13;  Lucan,  Pharsalia,  vi.  543,  547; 
Xenophon  of  Ephesus,  Ephesiaca,  iv.  2 ;  Juvenal,  6,  5 ;  Valerius 
Maximus,  2,  7,  12;   Quintilian,  Declam.  275;   Lucian,  Jvd.  voc. 
12;   Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  97;   Tertullian,  Adv.  Marcionem, 
iii.  19. 

15  Josephus,  De  bello  jud.  v.  ii.  1,  2;  Antiq.  jud.  xx.  vi.  2. 


THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS        317 

16  Paul,  Sent.  5,3,1:  "  Extra  ordinem  vindicator."     Ibid.  5,  4, 
par.  1 :  "  Nostra  interest  vindicare."    Ibid.  par.  4,  par.  7:  "  Furis 
inruentis  consilium  vindicetur."     Gai.  3,  217:    "  Damnum  in- 
iuria  vindicator."    1.  181,  pr.  Dig.  L.  16:   "  Pcena  est  noxse  vin- 
dicta."    1.  1,  Cod.  i.  1:    "  Divina  primum  vindicta,  post  etiam 
motus  animi  nostri,  quern  ex  cselesti  arbitrio  sumpserimus  ultione 
plectendis."     Ibid.  1.  9,  ii.  11:    "  Temerarie  commissa  congrua 
ultione  plectantur."  Ibid.  9,  ii.  11:   "  Ob  ultionem  publicam  ob- 
noxius  legibus  fiat."    The  good  thief  himself,  who  was  crucified 
by  the  side  of  Jesus,  appears  to  refer  to  the  principle  of  just  ret- 
ribution when  he  says :    "  And  we  indeed  justly,  for  we  receive 
the  due  reward  of  our  deeds  "  (S.  Luke  xxiii.  41). 

17  Dig.  48,  19,  20:   "  Poena  constituitur  in  emendationem  hom- 
inum."    Nov.  8,  8;   Nov.  12,  1;   Nov.  17,  5;   Nov.  25,  2;    NOT. 
30,  11;  Cottatio  1, 11,2  :  "Ut  ceteri  eiusdem  setatis  iuvenes  emen- 
darentur." 

18  Cod.  ix.  27,  1 :   "  Unius  poena  metus  possit  esse  multorum." 
Ibid.  i.  11,  7:     "  Ut  hac  legis  nostrse  severitate  perterriti  metu 
pcense  desinant  sacrificia  interdicta  celebrare."    The  magnum 
competens  exemplum  is  the  marking  feature  of  all  chastisement. 
Dig.  49, 16,  8,  par.  3:  "  Propter  exemplum  capite  puniendus  est." 
Nov.  Maior,  ix:    "  Ut  competent!  luxuria  castigata  ab  expugna- 
tione  pudicitise."    Nov.  Theod.  xviii;  Coll.  51,  7, 1;  1. 17,  par.  10, 
Dig.  xlviii.  19. 

19  Paul,  Sent.  5,  la,  par.  6:    "Alterum  utilitas  privatorum,  al- 
terum  vigor  publicae  disciplinae  postulat."    Ibid.  5,  6,  par.  15: 
**  Interest  publicse  disciplinae  opinionen  uniuscuiusque  a  turpis 
carminis  infamia  vindicare."     Cod.  ix.  2,  10:    "  Contra  discipli- 
nam  publicam."    Cod.  ix.  30,  1;   Dig.  1,  11,  1  pr.;   Nov.  2;    C. 
Th.  iv.  33, 1;  xvi.  8,  21. 

20  Inferno,  xxviii.  142. 

21  Nov.  8,  8;  see  note  18. 

22  Livy,  i.  26;    Cicero,  Pro  Rabirio,  4.    The  Latins  properly 
called  arbores  infelices  trees  abominated  by  religion,  such  as  are 
not  sown  and  yield  no  fruit — the  poplar  and  elm,  for  instance 
(Pliny,  Hist.  not.  lib.  xxvi.)     The  punishment  which  went  by 
this  name  was  preceded  by  scourging. 

23  Cicero,  Pro  Rabirio,  3;   Terence,  Eunuchus,  2,  3,  91;   Plau- 
tus,  Aulularia,  3,  5,  46;  Columella,  in  Gesen.  Lex.  1,  7. 


318        THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

24  Apuleius,  Metam.  10;  Ammianus,  in  Gesen.  Lex.  9,  2. 

25  Tertullian,  Ap.  viii.  16. 

26  Cicero,  Zte  dm  i.  26;    Plautus  J/i'/es  grZor.  2,  4,  7;    Tacitus, 
-4?w.  14,  33. 

27  Cf.  Pothier,  xlviii.;  xix.  4. 

28  Isidorus,  Origr.  v.  27. 

29  Lipsius,  Z)e  cruce  1, 3. 

30  Pro  Rabirio,  4, 10. 

31  Paul,  Sm£.  lib.  v.  tit.  14,  par.  19:    "  Summa  supplicia  sunt 
Crux,  Crematio,  Decollatio."    To  lessen  the  ignominy  it  was 
sometimes  carried  out  in  prison.     Cf.  Valerius  Maximus,  viii. 
4,2. 

32  Irenseus,  among  the  writers  least  removed  in  point  of  time 
from  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  declares  that  the  cross  had  four  ex- 
tremities (Advers.  hceret.  ii.  24,  4).     In  a  magnificent  picture  of 
the  quattro-cento  attributed  to  Pesellino,  which  is  to  be  seen  (but 
who  indeed  sees  the  real  miracles  of  art  ?)  in  the  church  of  S.  Don- 
nine  at  Brozzi  near  Florence,  there  is  depicted  a  cross;  the  super- 
scription is  fixed  above  the  transverse  beam  by  means  of  a  little 
staff  planted  in  the  extremity.    This  is  an  involuntary  but  taste- 
ful objection  to  the  presumed  form  of  the  cross  inferred  from  the 
placing  of  the  superscription  upon  the  upper  portion  of  the  vertical 
beam.    If  the  courageous  old  painter  of  the  "  little  staff,"  forgotten 
though  he  is,  were  made  the  object  of  polemics,  he  might  rightly 
rejoin  that  the  immissa  or  capitata  variety  of  the  cross  might  very 
well  be  assumed  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  as  we  have  records  that 
it  was  Roman.     In  order  to  lessen  the  ignominy,  the  early  Chris- 
tian adopted  various  symbolic  signs  for  the  cross  (infamis  stipes), 
viz.  the  trident,  an  upright  hammer,  the  Greek  or  Latin  T,  or 
sometimes  the  Greek  gamma,  T.    Isidoro  Carini,  in  his  work  on 
the  Passione  di  Cristo,  describes  the  main  phases  of  Christian  art 
with  respect  to  the  worship  of  the  cross  and  of  Christ.     He  begins 
with  the  symbolic  period  when  the  cross  is  dissimulated  under  the 
various  forms  above  mentioned.     Next  comes  the  period  of  the 
"  bare  cross  "  accompanied  by  the  symbol  of  the  sacrificed  lamb. 
And  finally  we  reach  the  cross  with  the  name  of  Christ  by  itself 
and  with  Christ  nailed  upon  it.    At  the  beginning  Christ  is 
clothed  in  a  long  tunic,  called  the  colobium ;  the  tunic  is  then  short- 
ened, and  finally  it  is  replaced  by  the  cloth  about  the  loins  called 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS         319 

by  the  Greek  term  perizoma.  Cf.  Vignon,  Le  linceul  du  Christ: 
etude  scientifique,  Paris,  1902  ;  Garrucci,  Storia  dell1  arte  Cris- 
tiana,  vol.  i.,  Prato,  1881;  Gatti,  Album  G.  B.  De  Rossi,  Rome, 
1902.  In  this  last  work,  written  in  honour  of  the  seventieth  birth- 
day of  G.  B.  De  Rossi,  the  famous  leader  of  Christian  archaeo- 
logical studies,  are  gathered  together  papers  by  Waal,  Kraus, 
Batiffol,  Eudres,  Armellini,  Marucchi,  Scagliori,  and  others,  all  of 
them  with  relation  to  ancient  Christian  art. 

33  Irenaeus,  Adv.  hceret,  ii.  42. 

34  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  91 ;  Tertullian,  Ad.  not.  i.  12. 

35  Seneca,  Ep.  101 :   "  Hanc  (vitam)  mini,  vel  acuta  si  sedeam 
cruce,  sustine." 

36  The  fancy  of  certain  people  led  necessarily  to  discussions  as 
to  the  variety  of  wood  out  of  which  the  cross  of  Jesus  was  made. 
Calvin  remarked  that  the  wood  itself  had  so  multiplied  that  were 
it  united  there  would  be  enough  to  load  a  ship.     S.  Bernard  said 
that  it  was  of  four  kinds,  Cyprus,  cedar,  olive,  and  palm  (in  Cant. 
vii.  8).     On  the  other  hand,  Decaisne  and  Savi  declare  that  they 
have  examined  under  the  microscope  certain  particles  of  the  sup- 
posed relics  of  the  cross  which  are  in  the  Cathedral  of  Pisa,  the 
Duomo  at  Florence,  Notre  Dame  de  Paris,  and  in  the  Basilica  of 
the  Holy  Cross  in  Jerusalem,  and  they  have  discovered  that  they 
all  belong  to  the  same  species  of  wood,  viz.  pine. 

37  Galba,  9. 

38  Cicero,  Verr.  v.  66  :    "  More  atque  institute  suo  crucem 
(Mamertini)  fixerunt    ...    in  via  Pompeia."    Quintilian,  De- 
clam.  275 :  "  Quotiens  noxios  crucifigimus,  celeberrimse  eliguntur 
viee,  ubi  plurimi  intueri,  plurimi  commoveri  hoc  metu  possint." 

39  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  35,  38;   S.  Mark  xv.  24,  25,  27;   S.  Luke 
xxiii.  33;  S.  John  xix.  18.    A  book  with  an  alluring  title  but  of  no 
authority  is  La  Mort  de  Jesus:  Revelations  historiques  sur  le  veri- 
table genre  de  mort  de  Jesus,  traduit  du  latin  d'apres  le  manuscrit 
d'un  frere  de  Vordre  sacre  des  Esseniens,  contemporain  de  Jesus, 
par  D,  Ramee  (Paris,  Dentu,  1863). 

40  Justin,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  97;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marcionem, 
3,19. 

41  Psalm  xxi.  16:  "  And  they  pierced  my  hands  and  feet."    Cf. 
Strauss,  Vie,  par.  132. 

42  Mostellaria,  2,  1 :  "Affigantur  bis  pedes,  bis  brachia."    Nat- 


320         THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

urally  fancy  has  also  fixed  upon  the  number  of  nails  employed 
by  the  crucifiers  of  the  Nazarene.  Latin  tradition  supposes  it  to 
have  been  three,  assigning  one  only  to  the  feet;  Greek  tradition 
and  S.  Gregory  of  Tours  would  have  that  there  were  four.  Oth- 
ers put  more,  according  to  the  amount  they  have. 

43  S.  Mark  declares  explicitly  that  the  writing  was  the  super- 
scription of  accusation  (xv.  26).     S.  Matthew  calls  it  his  "  accu- 
sation written  "  (xxvii.  32).     S.  Luke  speaks  merely  of  a  super- 
scription (xxiii.  38),  S.  John  of  a  "  title  "  (xix.  19). 

44  Caligula,  32 :     "  Prsecedente  titulo  qui  causam  pcenae  indi- 
caret."    Domitian,  10:   "  Cum  hoc  titulo;  impie  locutus  parmu- 
larius." 

45  Bonghi  rightly  adopts  the  fact,  but  whence  he  takes  it  I  do 
not  know,  that  the  titidus  was  carried  by  Jesus,  Simon,  or  some 
one  else  (Vita  di  Gesu,  p.  286). 

46  Thus  in  S.  John,  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  King  of  the  Jews  " 
(xix.  19).     Cf.  S.  Matthew,  "  This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews  " 
(xxvii.  37);    S.  Mark,  "  King  of  the  Jews  "  (xv.  26);    S.  Luke, 
"  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews  "  (xxiii.  38). 

47  S.  Luke  xxiii.  38;  S.  John  xix.  20. 

48  S.  John  xix.  19:    "  And  Pilate  wrote  a  title  also  and  put  it  on 
the  cross/* 

49  S.John  xix.  21, 22. 

50  For  the  necessity  of  such  an  application  in  a  Roman  province, 
see  chap.  x.  note  13,  and  chap.  xxi.  note  10. 

51  Cf .  upon  the  Crimen  maiestatis  and  Seditio,  Ferrini,  Dir.  pen. 
Rom.  chap.  xi.  p.  252  et  seq. 

52  Babyl  Sanhedrin,  f.  43,  1 :    Dixit,  R.  Chaja,  f .  3.    Ascher, 
dixisse  R.  Chasdam:    "  Exeunti,  ut  capite  plectatur,  dant  biben- 
dum  granum  turis  in  poculo  vini,  ut  alienetur  mens  ejus,  sec.  d. 
Prov.  31,  6:  Date  siceram  pereunti  et  vinum  amarissimum." 

53  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  34 :    "  They  gave  Him  wine  to  drink  min- 
gled with  gall."    S.  Mark  xv.  23;     "  And  they  offered  Him  wine 
mingled  with  myrrh."      Certain  authors  indeed,  among  whom 
is  Langen  quoted  by  Didon,   relate  that  the  ancient  naturalists 
Dioscorides  and    Galen  attributed  a  calming  effect  to  incense 
and  myrrh  (J. -Christ,  ch.  ii.).    The  other  two  Evangelists  do  not 
speak  of  any  drink  at  this  point.     They  speak  of  such  later  on, 
and  in  agreement  with  the  two  first,  when  Jesus  said,  "  I  thirst." 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS        321 

54  Spartianus,  H adrian.  10;  Vulcarius,  Ovid.  5 ;  Plautus,  Miles 
glor.  3, 2,  23;  Ibid.  Trucul.  2,  7,  48. 

55  Artemidorus,  Onirocr.  ii.  53. 

66  L.  6,  Dig.  De  bonis  damnatorum,  xlvii.  20. 

57  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  35;    S.  Mark  xv.  24;    S.  Luke  xxiii.  34; 
S.  John  xix.  23,  24.     The  detail  as  to  the  number  of  the  soldiers 
(perhaps  he  refers  expressly  to  those  charged  with  the  execution) 
is  given  only  by  S.  John;   and  by  him  also  alone  is  given  the  de- 
tail that  the  tunic  was  cast  lots  for  and  not  divided  among  the 
soldiers. 

58  S.  Luke  xxiii.  39,  43.     This  episode  is  suppressed  by  the 
other  three  Evangelists.     S.  Matthew  (xxvii.  14)  and  S.  Mark 
(xv.  32)  say  that  the  two  malefactors  also  reviled  Jesus;  S.  John 
does  not  mention  this,  although  he  does  not  neglect  the  presence 
of  the  "  two  others  "  at  the  crucifixion  (xix.  18). 

59  S.  Luke  xxiii.  33.    The  other  Evangelists  pass  over  these 
words,  likely  enough  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus. 

60  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  45-8;    S.  Mark  xv.  34-6.     S.  Luke  and 
S.  John  pass  over  this  particular,  which  bears  the  impress  of  one, 
unlike  others  of  Messianic  foundation,  which  has  been  really 
felt  and  not  part  of  a  trumped-up  story.     Didon  believes    se- 
riously that  there  was  a  misunderstanding,  and  deduces  evidence 
therefor,  showing  that  among  the  pilgrims  gathered  at  Jerusa- 
lem for  the  Passover  there  must  have  been  Greek  and  Roman 
strangers,  who  understood  neither  Hebrew,  Armenian,  nor  Syro- 
Chaldaic  (J.-Christ,  ch.  ii.).     In  reality,  if  these  words  were  ut- 
tered in  Aramaic,  the  great  majority  of  those  present  should  have 
understood  them. 

61  The  last  words  of  Jesus  are  usually  gathered  together  from 
the  context  of  the  Gospels  ;  each  one  of  these,  taken  by  itself, 
is  incomplete  and  even  contradictory  with  regard  to  the  others 
in  certain  details.     For  example,  S.  John  puts  into  Jesus'  mouth 
the  words  "I  thirst,"  which  are  passed  over  by  the  Synoptics; 
these  place  the  second  drinking  incident  at  the  point  of  the  ex- 
clamation "  Eloi,  Eloi,"  whereas  S.  John  omits  this  exclamation, 
but  places  the  incident  of  the  beverage  at  the  time  of  the  words 
"  I  thirst." 

62  Psalm  xxii.  1,  6,  7,  14-19.     Cf.  the  fine  unpublished  trans- 
lation from  the  Hebrew,  quoted  by  Didon  (J. -Christ,  ch.  ii.)  of 


322        THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

which  the  author  is  P.  Scheil.  Here  the  Prayer-book  version  is 
given,  and  the  passages  only  in  which  the  Evangelists  show  the 
Messianic  coincidence  contained  in  the  prophecy  of  this  Psalm, 
and  not  only  the  last  words,  but  also  the  last  events  of  the  Passion 
of  Jesus. 

63  Seneca,  De  ira,  iii.  32;    Suetonius,  Octav.  67;    Lactantius, 
Instit.;    Lipsius,  De  cruce,  lib.  ii.  c.  14,  lib.  iii.  c.  14;    Plautus, 
Pcenulus,  4,  2,  64.     Renan  cites  the  passage  from  Ibn-Hischam 
translated  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes  i.  99 
(Vie,  ch.  xxvi.). 

64  Herodotus,  vii.  194;  Josephus,  Vita,  65. 

65  Petronius,  Sat.  cxi;  Origen,  In  Matt.  Comment,  series,  140. 

66  Eusebius,  Hist,  eccles.  viii.  8;  cf.  Renan,  Vie,  ch.  xxv. 

67  Joshua,  viii.  29,  x.  26;    Mishna,  Sanhedrin,  vi.  5.     Renan 
says  that  this  prohibition  had  its  origin  in  the  law;    but  in  the 
Pentateuch  any  such  provision  is  wanting,  and  the  passage  of 
Joshua  only  mentions  a  special  enactment.    The  Sanhedrin  is 
the  work  of  the  Talmudists,  and  therefore  not  contemporary  with 
Jesus. 

68  S.  John  xix.  31 ;  Philo,  In  Flaccum,  par.  10. 

69  S.John  xix.  31-3. 

70  S.  Matthew  xxvii.  45,  46,  50;  S.  Mark  xv.  25,  33,  34,  37;  S. 
Luke  xix.  13,  14.     The  divergence  between  the  passages  of  the 
Gospel  with  regard  to  the  hour  of  death  of  Jesus  is  evident  and 
irreconcilable.     The  most  acceptable  hypothesis  seems  to  be 
that  of  the  ninth  hour  of  the  Hebrews,  which  answers  to   our 
3p.m. 


INDEX 


As  BETH  DIN,  165 

Abel,  murder  of,  68 

Abolitio,  256,  263,  264 

Absolvo,  292,  293 

Aceldama,  field  of,  100 

Acts  of  Pilate,  the,  222, 245-8 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  S. 
Luke,  171 

Adulteress,  the,  and  Jesus, 
86,  87,  90-4,  83,  84,  87-91 

Adultery  and  the  Mosaic  code, 
87-91,  166,  167,  204,  205 

Akiba  and  the  Messiah,  197 

Albo  and  the  Messiah,  197 

Album  iudicum,  290 

Alexander  and  Jesus,  300,  315 

Alexander  VI.  and  Savona- 
rola, 270 

Alexandria,  Jews  at,  6 

and  miracles,  94,  95 

Almsgiving,  25,  99 

Amnesty,  255 

Anarchy  and  Christianity,  29, 
55,56 

Annas,  legal  position  of,  139, 
146,  147 

and  Caiaphas,  122 

and  Jesus's  arrest,  122-6 

and  Pilate,  224 

Anthony  and  Syria,  132,  166 

Antigon  of  Soco,  6 

Antipater,  v.  Herod 


Apocalypse,  171 

Apostles,  mission  of  the,  78, 
79,  82,  86 

the  Twelve,  64,  72 

v.  also  Disciples 

Arbor  infelix,  303 

Archelaus  and  Judaea,  132, 
166,  226 

Arrabbiati,  the,  and  Savona- 
rola, 275 

Arrest  of  Jesus,  113,  114,  153 

(date),  127 

its  illegality,  112-22,  146, 

147 


v.  also  Sanhedrin,  Trial 

of  Jesus 

Asmonean  princess,  the,  302 
Augustus  and  the  census,  18 

and  Judaea,  43 

and  Rome,  138,  291 

BABYLON,  wealth  of,  3 

Baptism  and  John  the  Bap- 
tist, 13,  22 

Barabbas,  character  of,  260 

release  of,  233,  250,  261, 

267,  286 

Bentham  and  Hobbes,  121 

Bethany,  Jesus  at,  92,  93, 
100,  103 

Bethsaida,  annexation  of,  to 
Syria,  80 


323 


324 


INDEX 


Bethsaida,  Jesus  at,  80 
Betrayal  of  Jesus,   113,   114, 

121-23 

v.  also  Judas 

Blasphemy    and    the    Mosaic 

law,  166,  167,  178,  179,  209, 

214 
Jesus  charged  with,  166, 

172,  175-80, 184-91,  227,  307 
Borgias,  the,  and  Savonarola, 

271 

Bovio,  Giovanni,  88,  89 
Burning,  204,  212 

CAESAR    (tribute)    and   Jesus, 

2,  53,  54 
Caesar  Augustus,  v.  Augustus, 

etc. 
Csesarea  and  Pilate,  233,  234 

and  Herod,  242,  243 

Caiaphas,  character  of,  123 

legal  position  of,  139  sqq. 

and  Jesus,  93,  125,  126, 

157,  158 

and  Pilate,  228 

and  Romolino,  275 

and  St.  John,  174 

v.   also  Arrest,  Trial  of 

Jesus,  etc. 

Calculus  Minervce,  263 
Calendar,  the  Jewish,  127 
Caligula     (punishment),    306, 

320 

Calvin  and  the  cross,  319 
Canaan  and  land  distribution, 

24 

Capernaum,  Jesus  at,  64 
Capital  punishment,  135,  136, 

137,  149,  150,  160,  161, 166, 

167,  212,  213,  234 
Carissimi,  137 
Carthaginians  and  Crucifixion, 

302 


Cassation,  Courts  of,  149,  150 

Castelli  and  the  Messiah,  197, 
198 

Celestine  and  Pilate,  223  — * 

Celibacy  in  the  early  Church, 
34, 35 

Centurion,  the,  119 

Charcot   and  psychical  influ- 
ences, 106,  107 

Chareth,  205 

Chasdai  Kreskas  and  the  Mes- 
siah, 197 

X&iapxos,  117,  127 

Chlamys,  287,  295 

Christ,  the,  84,  172,  175,  176, 
237,  238. 

Christianity  and  courage,  56, 
57 

and    individualism,    40, 

54-6 

and  paganism,  26,  27 

and  Rome,  170 

and  socialism,  40 


Chronology,  18 

Cicero    and    crucifixion,    303, 

305 

Civitas,  55 
Claudia  and  Pilate,  216,  217, 

266,  267 

Claudius  and  Pilate,  225,  226 
Colonies  of  Greece  and  Rome, 

135 
Columbus     and     Savonarola, 

270 

Comitia,  procedure,  289,  293 
Communism,  30 
Constantine  and  Sylvester,  26 

and  the  cross,  303 

Coponius  and  the  Zealots,  8 
Cordaro,  Carlo,  90 
Cornus,  304 

Courage  of  Christianity,  57 
Covenant,  the,  44,  45 


INDEX 


325 


Criminal    procedure    and    the 
Mosaic  law,  152 

at  Rome,  289-94 

v.   also    Capital   Punish- 
ment 

Criticism,  the  Higher,  181 

Cross,  the,  301-6,  316-20 

Crowds,   psychology  of,   275- 
78,  280,  281 

Crown    of    thorns,    the,    288, 
296 

Cruciarius,  303 

Crucifixion,  psychological  ex- 
planation of  the,  275-8 
in  antiquity,  302-4,  316- 


19 


of  Jesus,  299-314 


"Crucify    Him"     and    "Ho- 

sanna,"  269-81 
Crurifragium,  312,  322 
Cuiacius  and  Pilate,  139 

DANIEL  and  the  Messiah,  193 
Dante  and  Pilate,  223,  228 
David,  judges  of  King,  163, 243 

and  the  Messiah,  192 

Death  penalty,  the,  204,  205, 
212 

sentence    and    the    San- 

hedrin,  166,  167 
v.    also   Capital    Punish- 
ment 

Decapitation,  204,  205 
Decapolis,  Jesus  in,  81,  82 
Dedication,  the  feast  of,  87 
Defilement,  202,  203,  230 
Democratic     ideas     and     the 

Jews,  35,  36 
Denial  of  S.  Peter,  174 
Deuteronomy    and    the    San- 

hedrin,  162,  163,  164 
Didon  and  the  Sanhedrin,  241 
Dignitas,  255 


Diocletian  and  Pilate,  223 

and  popular  opinion,  282 

Diodati  and  talio,  207 
Disciples,  call  of  the,  64 

their  loss  of  faith,  268, 


269 


v.  also  Apostles 


Dives  and  Lazarus,  24 
Divine  right  of  kings,  206 
Domenico     and     Savonarola, 

271-4 

Domitian  (punishment),  305 
Dreams,  266,  267,  279 

EASTER  amnesty,  256 

Ebionism,  36 

Economic  conditions  of  anti- 

quity, 23,  24 
Egyptians  and  crucifixion,  301, 

302 

Eli,  miracles  of,  95 
Elias  and  Jesus,  311,  321 
-  and  John  the  Baptist,  71 
Elisha  and  Gehazi,  86 
miracles  of,  95 


ij  Eloi,   lama  sabachthani, 

311,  321 
English    and    Italian    courts, 

290 

eVcWa,  rA,  25,  26,  38,  39 
Ephraim,  Jesus  at,  99 
Epictetus  and  the  Christians, 

170 

Equites,  134 
Ergastulum,  201 
Esau  and  Pilate,  223 
Essenes,  the,  6,  7,  10 

-  and  Jesus,  16,  143 

-  and  John  the  Baptist,  13 
Eusebius  and  Jesus,  170 
Excessus  sedilis,  304 
Executive  and  judiciary,  139- 

41 


326 


INDEX 


FALSE  prophets  and  the  San- 
hedrin,  165,  166,  167 

False  witnesses,  v.  Blasphemy, 
Sedition 

Fama,  255 

Family  ties  and  Jesus'  teach- 
ing, 35,  40,  41 

Fathers,  the  Christian,  and 
wealth,  32,  33,  34 

Fines,  204-7 

Flaccus  Pomponius  and  Syria, 
132,  133,  138,  139 

Flagellation,  201,  205,  206 

Florence  and  Savonarola, 
270-5 

Furca,  303 

GABAATHA,  234 
Galilee,  Jesus  in,  82,  83 

religious  sects,  63,  64 

and  Herod,  132,  242 

Gaulonites,  the,  10 
Gazophylacium,  86,  87 
Genesis  and  the  Messiah,  193 
Gennesaret,  Jesus  at,  64,  79, 

89 

Gerizim,  Mount,  51,  220 
Germanicus  and  Pilate,  215 
Gethsemane,  Jesus  arrested  at, 

1,  113,  114,  153 
Giano  della  Bella,  223 
Gnosticism  and  the  Pharisees, 

5,6 

Golgotha,  142,  301,  315,  316 
Gospel  accounts,  divergences, 

v.  Trial  of  Jesus,  etc. 
Gospels,     authority    of    the, 

170-2 

the  (dates),  172 

Grace,  act  of,  255 
Graf,  Arturo,  90 
Greece,  art  of,  7 
colonies  of,  134,  135 


Greece,   and   crucifixion;  301; 

302 
and  miracles,  94,  95 


HANAN  and  St.  John,  185,  186 
Hanging,  202,  203,  205 
Harnack  and  industry,  58,  62 
Hebrews,  v.  Jews 
Herod  the  Great,  132 
Herod     Antipater     and     An- 
thony, 166 
Herod  and  Archelaus,  166 

and  Jesus,  70,  72,  78,  80, 

81,  142,  143,  178,  242-8 
and    John    Baptist,    14, 


70-2 

—  and  Judaea,  131,  132 

—  and  Pilate,  228,  229 
at  Jerusalem,  242,  249 


Herodian  dynasty,  7,  233,  234 
Herodians  and  trial  of  Jesus, 

142,  143 
Herodias  and  John  the  Baptist, 

70-2 

High  priests,  list  of  the,  129 
HiUel,  7 

and  the  Sabbath,  98 

Hippocrates  and  miracles,  94, 

95,  96 

Hobbes  and  Bentham,  121 
Holy  land,  the,  75,  76 
Horatius,  trial  of,  140,  141 
"Hosanna"      and      "Crucify 

Him,"  266-78 
Hostis,  134 

Humanity  and  justice,  143-5 
Hypocrisy,  evil  effects  of,  67 

IDOLATRY     and     the     Mosaic 

code,  8,  204,  205,  209 
Idumaea  and  Judaea,  132,  166 
Imperium,  134,  149 


INDEX 


327 


Imprisonment  and  the  Mosaic 

code,  201,  202,  211,  212 
Individualism       and       Chris- 
tianity, 29,  39,  54-6 
Indulgentia,  256,  263 
Infamia,  303 

Informer,  the,  120,  121,  122 
Inscriptionis  libellus,  293 
Irenaeus  and  Jesus'  mission,  15 
Italian  law  and  witnesses,  178 
Italian    and    English    Courts, 

290 

Italian  City  States  and  Com- 
munism, 30 

JEHOSHAPHAT,  judges  of  King, 

163,  243,  244 
Jehovah  and  Israel,  5,  45,  145, 

146 
Jerusalem,  Herod  at,  242,  249 

and  Pomponius,  132,  133 

and  Jesus,  1,5,  16,  C2-5, 

100,  101  sqq. 

and  Pilate,  132,  133 

and  Renan,  7 

and    the    Sanhedrin,    v. 


Sanhedrin 
Jesuits  and  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, 182 

Jesus,  son  of  Sirach,  7 
Jesus,  acquitted  by  Herod,  248 

arrest  of,  v.  Arrest 

artistic  treatment  of,  73-6, 

89,  90 

baptism  of,  16 

betrayal  of,  103,  113,  114 

birth  of,  15,  18,  19 

charged        with        blas- 
phemy, v.  Blasphemy 

charged  with  sedition,  v. 

Sedition 

charges  against,  210,  211, 


306,  307 


Jesus,  the  Christ,  84,  85,  173, 

175,  176,  237-9 

condemnation  of,  286 

crucifixion  of,  299,  314, 

322 


—  economic    teaching,    23, 
24,  33-5,  37,  38 

—  education  of,  14-16 

—  illegal    arrest    and    trial 
(q.   v.),    16,    114-16,    122-6, 
138-47 

—  immunity  of,  3,  9,  10,  11 

—  invective   and   irony  of, 
65-9 

—  "King  of  the  Jews,"  61; 
238,  267,  306,  307,  320 

—  legitimacy  of,  15,  20 

—  life  of  (authorities),  169- 
72,  225-8 

—  the  Messiah,  49,  187-96, 
238,  269 

—  miracles  of,  94-7,  225-8 

—  mockery  of,  287,  288 

—  mode  of  life,  64,  65 

—  personal  charm  of,  73-6 

—  political  teaching  of,  52-61 

—  propaganda  of,  66 

—  proposed  release  of,  250, 
256,  257,  258 

religious  teaching  of,  9, 


42-50 

—  resurrection   of,   225-8 

—  scourging    of,    248,    284, 
285,  287 

teaching  of,  2,  9,  10,  27- 


30,  52-61,  65 

trial  of,  v.  Trial 

triumphal  entry  of,  100-3 

vestments   of,   287,   295, 


309 


work  of,  313,  314 

and  almsgiving,   25,  26; 


99,  100 


328 


INDEX 


Jesus  and  anarchy,  56 

and  the  civil  power,  3 

and  family  ties,  21,  35, 

36,  41 
and  forgiveness,  27,  28, 

310 

and  hypocrisy,  81 

and     individualism,     29, 

54-6 
and    the    Last    Supper, 

103,  111 
and  the   mission   of  the 

Apostles,  78,  79,  82,  83 
and  the  Mosaic  tradition, 

46,  47,  59,  60,  84 

and  public   opinion,   84, 


85 

and  resignation,  56-8 

and  ritual,  80,  81 

and  the  Sabbath,  97-9 

and    the    Sanhedrin,    v. 

Sanhedrin 

and  socialism,  29-31, 36 

and  solitude,  81,  82 

and    the    superscription, 

306,  307,  320 

and  the  tribute,  53,  54 

Barabbas,  etc.,  v.  Names 

Jews,  calendar  of  the,  126,  127 
conservatism  of  the,  36, 

59,  60 

development  of  the,  3 

economic    conditions    of 

the,  23,  24 

idealism  of  the,  7,  8 

law    of    the,    v.    Mosaic 

Law 

responsibility  of  the,  284 

theocracy  of  the,  43,  44 

tribunals  of  the,  242,  245 

Jews,   the,   and   the   Messiah, 

13,  191-9 
and  miracles,  94,  95 


Jews  and  Pilate,  220,  221,  238, 

239 

and  Rome,  3,  4,  44 

Jezebel  and  Herodias,  70,  71 

and  Naboth,  163 

Joanna  and  Jesus,  64,  301 
Job  and  labour,  36 
John  the  Baptist,  12-16 

and  Herod,  70-2 

and  Jesus,  16,  65,  79,  80 

Jonas,  sign  of,  96 

Jordan,    the,    and    John    the 

Baptist,  12 

and  Jesus,  85 

Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  25,  231 

and  Mary,  15,  19 

death  of,  16,  22 

Josephus  and  Jesus,  169,  170 

and  miracles,  96 

and  Pilate,  218,  234 

Judaea,  Jesus  in,  82,  83 

and  Archelaus,  132 

and  Herod,  132 

and     Pilate,     138,     139, 

216-22 
and  Rome,  135,  136,  166, 

167 

Judah  of  Gamala,  9 
Judah  of  Gaulon,  9 
Judah,  son  of  Sariphseus,  8 
Judah  Levita  and  the  Messiah, 

19 

Judas,  call  of,  64 
character  of,  88,  89,  100, 

110 
treachery   of,    103,    117, 

122,  141,  142 

and  almsgiving,  99,  100 


Judicature,  functions  of,  149, 
150 

ideal  system  of,  108,  109 

and  the  Mosaic  law,  163-8 

Judiciary  and  executive,  139-41 


INDEX 


329 


Julius  Caesar,  assassination  of, 

267 

Jus  gladii,  138,  149,  167 
Justice,  betrayal  of,  141-4 

and  humanity,  143-5 

administration  of,  v.  San- 

hedrin,  Mosaic  Law,  Roman 

Law,  Talmud 
Justin  and  the  trial  of  Jesus, 

246 

KING,  chosen  by  Israel,  163-7 
"King  of  the  Jews,"  61,  238, 

267,  306,  320 
Kings,  divine  right  of,  206 

La  Samaritaine,  90 
Land  tenure,  25,  36 
Lapidation,  83,  84,  86-90 
Last  Supper,  the,  103,  110,  111 
Law,  character  of,  53,  54 
Lazarus  and  Dives,  25 

and  Jesus,  92,  93,  99 

Levites,  the,  43 

and  the  Praetorium,  230-2 

Leviticus  and  land  tenure,  36 

—  and  treachery,  122 
Libellus  inscriptionis,  293 
Livia  and  Judsea,  43 
Lucian  and  the  Christians,  170 

and  miracles,  95 

Lucifer  and  Pilate,  223 
Luxury,  v.  Wealth 

MACHERO,  John  imprisoned  at, 

70 

Magister,  138 
Maimonides  and  the  Messiah, 

197,  198 

Majorities,  rights  of,  144 
Malchus   and   S.    Peter,    113, 

114,  120,  121 


Manlius,  trial  of,  140,  141 
Marconi  and  the  miraculous, 

107 

Martha  and  Jesus,  92,  93,  99 
Mary  and  Joseph,  15,  20 

—  and  the  Crucifixion,  300, 

301 
Mary    (Bethany)    and    Jesus, 

92,  93,  99 
Mary,  relation  of  Cleopas,  and 

Jesus,  21,  301 
Mary    Magdalene    and    Jesus, 

64,  301 

Matthew,  son  of  Margaloth,  8 
Maximian  and  popular  opin- 
ion, 282 

Mazzini  and  Christianity,  48 
Mercy,  prerogative  of,  251-9 
Messiah,  the,  13,  49,  50,  187, 

197,  198,  238,  269 
Meunier  and  Christian  social- 
ism, 40 

Minervcp,  Calculus,  263 
Minorities,  rights  of,  144,  145 
Miracle     demanded     by     the 

crowd,  96,  97,  269,  274,  310 
Miracles,  94-7,  104-8,  274,  275, 

280 
Mission  of  the  Apostles,  78,  79, 

82,83 

Mockery  of  Jesus,  287,  288 
Moliere,  irony  of,  69 
Moloch  worship,  210 
Monotheism  in  Judsea,  5,  43, 

44,  145 

Mosaic  and  Roman  law,  83 
Mosaic  law,  the,  84,  87-90, 128, 

251 

minutiae  of  the,  158-60 

punishments  of  the,  201; 

212,  213 

and   criminal   procedure, 


152,  160,  161 


330 


INDEX 


Mosaic  law  and  Jesus,  46,  47, 

59,  60,  84 
and    Judas's    treachery, 

121,  122 

and  pardon,  251-9 

and  witnesses,  177-80 

Mosaic     law,     v.     also     San- 

hedrin 

Moses,  miracles  of,  94,  95 
and  the  covenant,  5,  44, 

45 
and  Zealots,  8 

NABOTH  and  Jezebel,  163 

and  John  the  Baptist,  71 

Nasi,  the,  165 

Nazarenes,  the,  and  John  the 

Baptist,  14 
Nazareth,  Jesus  at,  16,  63,  64 

and  Joseph,  15 

and  the  Syrian  type,  18 

Nero  and  the  Christians,  170 
New  Testament,  authority  of 

the,  170-2 
Nicodemus  and  Jesus,  48,  70 

and  the  Messiah,  193 

and  the  Sanhedrin,  200 

Non  liquet,  293,  298 

OCTAVIAN  and  Syria,  131,  132, 

166,  167 
Old  Testament,  the,  and  wealth 

36-8 

and  the  Messiah,  193 

Olives,  Mount  of,  Jesus  on  the, 

100,  101,  102,  103,  112 
Otto,  Lord,  and  Savonarola, 

271 

PAGANISM  and  Christianity,  26 
PannicuLaria,  309 
irapcuTKcvr),  231 
Pardon,  the  prayer  for,  310 


Pardon,  prerogative   of,    209, 
248-59 

Passover,  ritual  of  the,  235-7, 
245,  257,  258,  264,  269 

Patibulum,  303 

Patroni,  the,  293 

Penal  sanction,  extinction  of 
the,  251-8,  261,  262 

Pentateuch,  the,  and  the  Mes- 
siah, 193 

Perduellio,  141 

Perea  and  Herod,  132 

Persians  and  crucifixion,  301, 
302 

Pharisee,  the,  and  the  publi- 
can, 68,  69 

Pharisees,  the,  5-7,  10,  67,  68, 
69,  76 

and  the  Arrabbiati,  274 

and  Galilee,  63,  64 

and  Jesus,  2,  42,  65,  69, 

80,  81,  93,  102,  114-16,  142 
and  John  the  Baptist,  12 


Philip  and  Archelaus,  166 

and  Judaea,  132 

and  Pilate,  228 

Philo  and  Pilate,  217,  218 

Philostratus  and  miracles,  94, 
95,  96 

Phoenicia,  Jesus  in,  81,  82 

Phoenicians,  the,  and  the  Cru- 
cifixion, 302 

Piagnoni,  the,  and  Savonarola; 
274 

Pilate,  Acts  of,  222,  225-9 

career  of,  215-224 

character    of,    217,    218, 

235,  236 

judicial  powers  of,  291, 


292 

—  palace  of,  233 

—  proposes     pardon,     250, 


INDEX 


331 


Pilate,  responsibility  of,  146, 
147,  243,  244,  245,  286,  307, 
308 

suicide  of,  221,  222,  225 

washes   his   hands,    283, 

284 


—  and  the  insignia,  218,  219 

—  and  Jerusalem,  133 

—  and  Jesus,  116,  119,  120, 
130,  133,  134,  142,  143,  146, 
147,  169,  170,  180,  201,  221, 
228-39,   250,  256-60,  266-8, 
271,  272,   278,   282-8,    306, 
307 

—  and  Judaea,  138,  139 
and    the    superscription, 


306,  307 

and  the  Zealots,  8 

Pirke  Abothe,  the,  65 
Pisani,  palace  of  the,  271,  272 
Plato  and  communism,  30 
Plautus  and  crucifixion,  305 
Plotinus  and  miracles,  95 
Pliny  and  the  Christians,  169, 

170 

Pollution,  202,  203,  230 
Polytheism,  204,  209,  210 
Pompey  and  Syria,  131,  132 
Ponte    Vecchio    and    Savona- 
rola, 275 

Pontius  Pilate,  v.  Pilate 
Portia  and  Shylock,  236 
Praetorium,  the,  138 

Jesus  at  the,  v.  Pilate 

the,    and    the    Levites, 

230-3 

Prescription  of  the  penal  sanc- 
tion, 252,  253,  262 
Priesthood   and   the   national 

idea,  45,  46 
Procurator,  the,  132,  133,  135, 

136,  224 
Procurator  patrimonii,  138 


Pro-consul,  the,  216,  217,  224 
Property,  rights  of,  29,  36,  37 
Prophets,  the,  4,  5,  193 
Prostitution  and  burning,  204 
Province,  v.  Rome 
Provocatio,  262,  264,  289 
Psalms,  the,  and  the  Messiah, 

193 
Psychology  of  crowds,  275-8, 

280 

Publicans,  the,  and  Jesus,  65 
Publius  Sulpicius  and  Syria, 

132,  166 
Punishment,   theory   of,    144, 

145 
Punishments  of  Mosaic  code, 

201-11,  212-14 

Pythagoras  and  the  Thera- 
peutics, 6 

Qucestiones  perpetuce,  290 
Quintilian  and  crucifixion,  305 
Quintilius   Varus    and    Syria, 

132 

Quirinus,  assessment  of,  132 
Quiritarium,  134 

RABBIS,  the,  6,  7 

Rabirius,  trial  of,  141 

Radium  and  the  miraculous, 
108 

Rationalis,  138 

Reichstag,  the,  and  socialism, 
31 

Reimarus  and  Jesus,  triumphal 
entry,  102 

Religion,  crimes  against,  209 

Renan,  causes  of  Jesus'  suc- 
cess, 73-6 

thesis  of  187,  188,  197 

and  arrest  of  Jesus,  123 

and  Barabbas,  260,  261 


332 


INDEX 


Renan  and  the  charges  against 

Jesus,  179,  187,  188 
and  the  false  witnesses, 

184,  185 

and  the  irony  of  Jesus, 


69,  70 

and  the  methods  of  Jesus, 

66 

and  the   trial   of   Jesus, 

115,  139 

Rescission,  26,  256-9 
Resignation  and  Jesus'  teach- 
ing, 56-8 

Restitutio  in  integrum,  255,  257 
Resurrection,  the,  225-9 
Retaliation,  207-9,  302 
Reynolds    and    psychical    in- 
fluences, 106 
Ritual,  80,  85,  230-2 
Rome,  colonies  of,  134,  135 

and  Augustus,  137,  138 

and  criminal  trials,  135, 

136,  251-8,  261,  262,  288-94 
and  crucifixion,  301,  302 
and  Jewish  theocracy, 


43,  44 
and   Judaea,    7,    45,    46, 

135,  136,  139,  166,  167 

and  miracles,  94,  95 

and  the  Mosaic  law,  83, 

234,  235 
Rome  and  the  municipalities, 

134,  135 
and   the   prerogative   of 

pardon,  251-8 

and    provincial    govern- 


ment, 133-41 
—  and  Sicily,  135 

and  tribute,  134,  135 


Romolino  and  Caiaphas,  274, 
275 

Rontgen  Rays  and  the  mirac- 
ulous, 107 


Rostand,  Edmond,  90 
Rufus  and  Jesus,  300,  315 

SA  'ADJA  and  the  Messiah,  197 
Sabbath,  the,  97-9,  231,  232 
Sadducees,  the,  6,  7,  142 

and  John  the  Baptist,  12 

S.  Ambrose  and  wealth,  34 
S.  Augustine  and  wealth,  34 

and  the  miraculous,  108 

S.  Basilius  and  wealth,  33 
S.  Bernard  and  the  cross,  319 
S.  Chrysostom  and  wealth,  33 
S.  Gregory  and  wealth,  33 
S.  Jerome  and  wealth,  33 
S.  John,  call  of,  64 

Gospel  of  (date),  172 

and  the  betrayal,  103 

and  Caiaphas,  174 

S.  Luke  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  171 

Gospel  of  (date),  172 

S.  Maria  del  Fiore  and  Savona- 
rola, 273 

S.     Mark,     church     of,     and 
Savonarola,  271 

Gospel  of  (date),  172 

S.  Matthew,  Gospel  of  (date), 

172 

S.  Michael  and  Pilate,  223 
S.    Paul,    Epistles   of    (date), 

171 

S.  Peter,  denial  of,  124-6,  155, 
157,  158,  174,  175 

discourses  of,  171 

and  the  Betrayal,  103 

and   Malchus,    113,    120, 


121 


and  the  trial,  186 


S.  Philip,  discourses  of,  171 
S.  Stephen,  discourses  of,  171 
S.  Thomas,  112 
S.  Veronica  and  Jesus,  301 


INDEX 


333 


Salome,  daughter  of  Herodias, 
70,  71 

Salome,  mother  of  James,  and 
Jesus,  64,  301 

Salvador   and   the   false   wit- 
nesses, 184,  185 

and  the  Jewish  constitu- 
tion, 139,  140 
and  talio,  207 


Samaria,  Jesus  in,  48 

and  Archelaus,  132 

and  Judaea,  166 

Samaritan,  the  Good,  49 
Samaritan    woman,    the,    48, 

50,  51 
Samaritans,  the,  and  Vitellius, 

220 

Samuel  and  Saul,  163 
Sanctuary,  cities  of,  209 

importance  of  the,  45,  46 

Sanhedrin,  constitution  of  the, 

87-91,  141,  162-7,  201,  204, 

234,  235,  243 
Jesus  before  the,   152-8, 

169,  173-80,  184-96,  200 
legal     position     of    the, 

139  sqq. 
the,  and  adultery,  87-91, 

165-7,  204 
and   the    arrest,    114-16, 

146,  147 

and  blasphemy,  166,  167 
and  Jesus,  47,  50,  93,  99, 


124-6,  146,  147,  166,  307 
Sanhedrin    and    the    Signory, 

275 
Sanhedrins,  the,  132,  133,  164, 

165,  167,  243 
Sardinia  and  Rome,  135 
Sariphaeus,  school  of,  8,  10 
Savonarola,  270-5 
Schammai  and  the  Sabbath. 

98 


Scholastics,  the,  198,  199 
Scourging  of  Jesus,  284 
Scribes,  the,  and  Jesus,  42,  65, 

67,  68,  80,  81,  116,  142,  247 
Sedilis  excessus,  304 
Sedition,  Jesus  charged  with, 

175-7,  184-91,  237,  239,  307 
Seleucid  dynasty,  the,  131 
Senate,     the,     and    restitutio, 

257,  258 

Shakespeare   (Shylock),  236 
and  the  miraculous,  107, 


108 

Shoterim,  the,  165 
Shylock,  as  Jewish  type,  236 
Sichar  and  Sichem,  51 
Sichem,  the  vale  of,  48,  49,  51; 

90 

Sicily  and  Rome,  135 
Signory,  the,  and  the  Sanhe- 
drin, 275 
Signory,   Square   of  the,   and 

Savonarola,  271,  272 
Silvestro      and      Savonarola, 

271-5 
Simon   the   leper   and   Jesus, 

92,  93 
Simon  of  Gyrene  and  Jesus, 

299,  300,  306,  315 
Simon  of  Samaria,  95 
Simon  Peter,  v.  S.  Peter 
Socialism  and  Christianity,  40 
Socrates,  irony  of,  69 
Solomon,  judgment  of,  163 
Solomon's  porch,  83 
Solon  and  the  Athenian,  276 
Sorcery,  210 
Spain  and  Pilate,  215 
Sparta  and  communism,  30 
OTrelpct,  117,  127 
Spettabili,  137 
Staticulum,  304 
Stipendium,  134 


334 


INDEX 


Stoning,  204,  209 

Strangulation,  204 

Strauss  and  Jesus'  triumphal 

entry,  101,  102 

and  the  Sanhedrin,  152 

Suetonius  and  the  Christians, 

170 

and  miracles,  94,  95 

Superscription,  the,  306,  307, 

320,  321 

Sylvester  and  Constantine,  26 
Synoptics,  v.  Gospels 
Syria,  governors  of,  138,  139, 

166 
political  constitution,  131- 

33 

TABERNACLES,    the    feast   of, 

87 

Tacitus  and  Jesus,  170 
Taleth,  the,  309 
Talio,  v.  Retaliation 
Talmud,  the,  65,  139,  140 
punishments  of  the,  201, 

212,  213 
and  the  administration  of 

justice,  162-7 

and  witnesses,  179,  180 

also  Mosaic  Law 


Temple,  the  (allegorical),  172, 

173,  176,  184-6 
Jesus  in  the,  16,  42,  46, 

70,  83,  97 

Tertullian  and  wealth,  34 
Thaumaturgy,  95,  96,  105,  108 
Theocracy,  5,  44,  145 
Therapeutics,  the,  6,  7,  143 
Thieves,  the  two,  300,  310,  315 
Thomas  Aquinas,  198 
Thorns,   the    crown   of,    288, 

296 

Tiberius  and  Flaccus,  133 
and  Pilate,  222,  225-8 


Torture,  methods  of,  212,  213 
Treachery  and  the  Mosaic  law, 

122 

Trial  of  Jesus,  114  sqq. 
(chronology),    126,    127, 

230-2 
before     the     Sanhedrin, 

152-96;  v.  also  Sanhedrin 
before  Pilate,  228-88;  v. 

also  Pilate 
its  injustice,  138-47,  152- 

60, 189,  190,  193-6,  287,  288, 

294 

Tribuni  militum,  the,  117,  118 
Tribute,  the,  8,  9,  135,  136 
Tyre,  Jesus  at,  81,  82 
wealth  of,  3 

USURY  (Old  Testament),  37 
Uti  rogas,  292 

Valeria  lex,  289 

Vectigalia,  135,  136 

Vena  Gallica  and  Pilate,  221; 

222 

Venia,  256 

Vergil  and  the  Messiah,  192 
Vespasian  and  miracles,  95 
Vestments  of  Jesus,  309 
Vien  di  Cerchi,  223 
Vitellius  and  the  Samaritans, 

220 


WEALTH,  attitude  of  Jesus  to, 
23,  33-5,  37,  38 

and  the  Christian  Fa- 
thers, 33,  34 

and  the  Old  Testament, 

36,  37 

Weregeld,  252 

Wizardry,  210 


INDEX 


335 


Witnesses    and    legal    codes, 
177,  178,  183 

the  false,  v.  Blasphemy, 


Sedition 
XENOPHON  and  communism,  30 


ZACHARIAS,  son  of  Barachias, 

68 

Zadok  and  the  tribute,  8 
Zealots,  the,  8,  9 
Zebedee,  113,  124 
Zoroaster  and  the  Essenes,  6 


CF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


— 

,cC     5    1*37 

'  '  '•     " 

D4VK 

toD*         "7       y      I         J 

1NTERLIBBARY  L< 

3    ',  N  ! 

JUL25  1 

V  ;-V  •!  ^ 

974 

fgC'D  CISC  t)Wft 

AUG  11  '14 

LD  21-100m-8,'34 

m 


YC  41057 


